Thiel College

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thiel College and Thiel College Chapter, American Association of University Professors, Petitioner. Case 6-RC-8667 April 30, 1982 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMAN Upon a petition filed on December 31, 1979, under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held on January 17, 1980,1 before Hearing Officer Laura A. John- ston. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec- tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region 6 transferred this case to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Em- ployer filed a brief with the Board. On February 20, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in N.L.R.B. v. Yeshiva Uni- versity,2 in which the Court held that the full-time faculty members at that university were managerial employees excluded from coverage of the Act. Since the issue addressed by the Court in Yeshiva University is also raised in the instant proceeding, the Board, on May 22, issued a "Notice to Parties of Opportunity To Submit Statements of Position." Thereafter, the Employer filed a statement of posi- tion. The National Labor Relations Board has re- viewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudi- cial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record, the Board finds: 1. Thiel College is a 4-year liberal arts, co-educa- tional institution located in Greenville, Pennsylva- nia. Since its inception in 1866, the College has been affiliated with the Lutheran Church of Amer- ica, hereinafter referred to as LCA. In 1971, the LCA granted formal recognition to it as an LCA- related college. This recognition was based on a written covenant between the College and the Western Pennsylvania-West Virginia Synod3 of the LCA. The covenant sets out the mutual expecta- tions and obligations of the two parties including, inter alia, on the part of the College, (1) to strive for the highest degree of excellence which its re- sources allow; (2) to provide an "open forum for the free exchange of thought, opinion, and belief'; (3) to provide opportunities for worship; (4) to re- cruit Lutheran students; (5) to commit itself to un- 'All dates herein are in 1980, unless otherwise indicated. '444 U.S. 672. 'This Synod, or aggregation of congregations, is composed of approxi- mately 350 congregations in this geographic area. 261 NLRB No. 84 derstanding and resolving social problems; (6) to act in consonance with the ethical standards of the LCA; (7) to strive "for the goals of different races on the faculty and among the students, opportun- ties to discover the needs of the disadvantaged at home and abroad, and the acquisition of those learnings and skills necessary to act in ways which enhance the quality of human life"; and (8) to make its facilities available for church programs. The covenant also specifies, inter alia, that the Synod has the duties (1) to support the College "in its role as an institution of free inquiry"; (2) to encourage its youth to attend the school; and (3) to support it financially. The financial support contributed by the Synod amounts to approximately $135,000 a year, in an unrestricted grant, out of the Synod's $900,000 budget.4 In addition, the Synod sponsors periodic fundraising drives, the next one to be held in 1983. Past drives have raised $750,000 to $1 million for the College. The Synod also contributes additional unrestricted moneys, which amounted to $7,000 to $8,000 in 1978. Finally, special restricted moneys from individual congregations can equal $15,000 a year, and faculty grants from the Synod can vary from $1,500 to $10,000 yearly. 5 The constitution of Thiel College sets forth its institutional purpose at article I, section 2. It is to provide "Christian higher education, preparing young men and women for service in the Church and in the various professions and vocations." Fur- ther, at article III, section 1, the constitution de- fines the course of instruction as the customary 4- year liberal arts program "including regular in- struction in the Christian religion." At article I, section 4, the constitution also delineates the struc- ture of the College's governing body. It requires that the 45-member board of trustees be composed of 24 trustees who are selected by the Synod, of whom 9 must be ministers, and 15 must be mem- bers of congregations in the Synod. Of the remain- ing 21 trustees, 15 are selected by the board of trustees, and 6 by the College's Alumni Associ- ation. Additional constitutional provisions state that: (1) all College property is owned by the Synod and no significant conveyance can be made without its permission; (2) if the College should cease to operate, its property would revert to the Synod; (3) the president must be a Lutheran, al- 'The College's budget is approximately $6 million a year. ' Student tuition amounts to approximately 75 percent of the College's operating budget. The students have access to Pennsylvania Higher Edu- cation Funds and other government moneys to assist them in making these payments. These funds constitute approximately 50 percent of the total tuition payments. 580 THIEL COLLEGE though he need not be a minister; 6 (4) the trustees select all of the administrative officers; and (5) the trustees must approve all nontenured faculty ap- pointments and all grants of tenure. According to the record testimony of Dr. John Braughler, a Lutheran pastor, a Thiel College trustee, and chairman of the religious life commit- tee, the Synod, by controlling the board of trustees, has the ultimate decisionmaking power on campus lifestyle issues; e.g., the use of alcohol and the nature of dormitory living. Further, Dr. Louis T. Alman, a Lutheran minister and president of Thiel College, testified that while the Synod may hold a "veto power" over College policies, in the day-to- day administration of the school he is free to exer- cise his own judgment. In addition, Dr. Alman noted that he makes an annual report to the Synod on the College's activities. With regard to other aspects of the College's op- erations, the evidence reveals that applicants for student or teaching positions need not be Luther- ans. In fact, there are more enrolled students of the Roman Catholic faith than of the Lutheran persua- sion. Further, teachers are informed of the school's affiliation with the LCA during the hiring process, and are asked to support the Church's goals, but are not required to sign an oath of support to the Church's mission. There are no religion courses which are required at the school. While there is a weekly 50-minute program dealing with the appli- cation of the Christian faith to total life experi- ences, open to the entire College community, at- tendance is voluntary.7 Out of the 1,000 students, 25 to 150 may attend a particular session. Further, 6 to 40 professors out of a total complement of 63 faculty members may attend, and 40 of the adminis- trative personnel may be present. This is not a worship service, but a discussion of issues from the Christian perspective. Finally, there are religious events scheduled during the week, such as chapel and Bible study groups, which are attended by ap- proximately 425 persons over the course of the week. The Petitioner seeks to represent only the full- time teaching faculty employed at Thiel College at its Greenville, Pennsylvania, campus. The Employ- er contends that the Supreme Court's decision in N. LR.B. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago,' which held ' Only 4 individuals in the administration and faculty are ministers; while it is unclear how many persons are in administration, only I of the 63 professors is a minister. I The bylaws of Thiel College do, however, provide at art. Vl, sec. 4, that "No faculty member shall engage in any outside undertaking, with or without pay, which shall hinder . . . regular attendance at . . . the religious services." '440 U.S. 490 (1979). that Congress never intended the Board to extend the Act's coverage to church-operated schools, precludes the Board from asserting jurisdiction herein. It argues this on the ground that the perva- sive role of the Synod in the life of the College re- quires a finding that the College is church-operat- ed, and therefore that assertion of jurisdiction by the Board would be contrary to the will of Con- gress and violative of the first amendment. At issue in Catholic Bishop was whether the Board properly asserted jurisdiction over two church-operated secondary schools. After examin- ing the National Labor Relations Act and its legis- lative history, the Court held that "Congress did not contemplate that the Board would require church-operated schools to grant recognition to unions as bargaining agents for their teachers,"" and therefore concluded that the Board lacked ju- risdiction over the schools in question. The Supreme Court had stated previously in Tilton v. Richardson,'° that "[t]here are generally significant differences between the religious aspects of church-related institutions of higher learning and parochial elementary and secondary schools," in deciding that the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 did not foster an excessive government en- tanglement with religion. The Court pointed out that, contrary to the situation in parochial schools, religious indoctrination is not the purpose of a col- lege education. Thus, the Court stated that "[s]ince religious indoctrination is not a substantial purpose or activity of these church-related colleges and uni- versities, there is less likelihood than in primary and secondary schools that religion will permeate the area of secular education."" Indeed, in Catholic Bishop itself, the Court, quoting from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 616 (1971), emphasized that secondary parochial schools "involve substan- tial religious activity and purpose," and, quoting Mr. Justice Douglas' concurring opinion in Lemon, noted that "the admitted and obvious fact that the raison d'etre of parochial schools is the propagation of a religious faith." Id at 628. Accordingly, the Board in Barber-Scotia College, Inc.,' 2 specifically interpreted the holding in Catho- lic Bishop as applying only to parochial elementary and secondary schools. In that case, the Board con- cluded that although Barber-Scotia, a 4-year liberal arts school, had a relationship with the United Presbyterian Church, it was "primarily concerned 'Id at 506. '"403 U.S. 672, 685 (1971). " Id. at 687. " 245 NLRB 406 (1979). 581 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with providing a secular education, rather than with inculcating particular religious values."'3 Barber-Scotia directly controls this case. Without question, Thiel College is associated with the Luth- eran Church, as evidenced generally by the cov- enant between Thiel and the Synod, and specifical- ly by its ownership of the College's property, its power to appoint most of Thiel's trustees, and its financial support of the institution. Just as clearly, however, the purpose of the school is primarily secular. The covenant provides that the Synod's expectations of the College are, among other things, that it attain the highest degree of academic excellence, that it be an open forum for the free ex- change of ideas, that it commit itself to understand- ing and resolving social problems, and that it assist its students to act in ways which enhance the qual- ity of human life. Also, the constitution of the Col- lege provides that its purpose is to train young people in the various vocations and professions, and that it offers as a course of studies a 4-year lib- eral arts program. Further, the Synod contributes only a small percentage of the College's budget. There is no requirement that students take religious courses or engage in worship. In addition, neither students nor teachers need be Lutheran, and the teachers do not have to commit themselves in writ- ing to support the Church's mission.' 4 Finally, the day-to-day administration of the college is not in- terfered with by the Church's representatives. Therefore, we conclude that Thiel is a liberal arts college mainly concerned with providing a secular education for students of all religious backgrounds and that we are not precluded from taking jurisdic- tion herein. The gross annual revenue of the College exceeds $1 million. At least $50,000 of that amount is re- ceived from outside the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion over Thiel College. 2. The labor organization involved claims to rep- resent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employ- er within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit con- sisting of all full-time teaching faculty, excluding all other employees, administrators, adjunct (part- time) faculty, guards, and supervisors. The Em- 1" Id. at 407. The Board reached a similar conclusion in College of Notrte Dme, 245 NLRB 386 (1979). " As previously noted, there are more Roman Catholic than Lutheran students at Thiel. ployer contends that the recent Supreme Court de- cision in Yeshiva University, supra, specifically ex- cludes such faculty members from the coverage of the Act on the basis that they are managerial em- ployees. It therefore argues that the petition must be dismissed. In the alternative, the Employer sub- mits that departmental chairmen and members of the executive committee of the faculty council should be excluded from the unit because these po- sitions are managerial and/or supervisory. Finally, the Employer contends that adjunct faculty mem- bers with 3 or more years of continuous service should be included in the unit. Article II,B, of the faculty's constitution pro- vides that: The Faculty fills the dual and traditional roles of a legislative body and a participant in the decision-making processes of the College. Its authority in these roles is derived from powers delegated to it by the Board of Trustees. 1. LEGISLATIVE With the approval of the Board of Trustees, the Faculty shall (a) enact rules for its own organization and procedure, (b) define the educational philosophy of the College, (c) establish the academic requirements for admission to and retention in the College as well as for all academic degree programs, (d) establish and interpret the academic poli- cies of the College, (e) certify to the Board of Trustees, for ap- proval for graduation, those students who have completed the prescribed course of study, (f) share with the administration and the stu- dent body in the definition, interpretation, and implementation ofpolicies concerning student conduct and life styles. 2. ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING With the approval of the Board of Trustees, the Faculty shall (a) participate in the definition of policy concerning its professional status, (b) participate with the Administration and Board of Trustees in the selection of the Presi- dent of the College, Academic Dean, and Col- lege Pastor, and (c) participate with the Administration and Board of Trustees on matters dealing with long-range educational, financial, and econom- ic planning and the growth of the institution. 582 THIEL COLLEGE The College is divided into 18 academic depart- ments. Each department has a chairman who is elected by its members for a 3-year term. The se- lection of the chairman is subject to confirmation and approval by the academic dean and vice presi- dent for academic services, Dr. Omro Todd.' s In addition to selecting a chairman, each department chooses a representative to the faculty council. The faculty council elects five members to the faculty council executive committee. The council and the executive committee operate as 2 of 19 standing committees of the faculty to carry out its responsi- bilities. According to the faculty constitution and the faculty bylaws, these committees have been set up for a variety of purposes, including acting as ad- visory bodies to the College's administrators and representing the "voice of the Faculty" in College operations. All of the committees are composed primarily of elected faculty representatives.' 6 The specific authority of the faculty concerning curriculum, course schedules and teaching loads, grading system and policies, admission and matric- ulation standards, degree and graduation require- ments, budgetary matters, salary issues and griev- ance adjustment, and hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, ter- minations, and promotions is described below. A. Curriculum The faculty formulates the College's curriculum. The faculty constitution empowers it to "define the educational philosophy of this College," and to "establish and interpret the academic policies of the College." The faculty bylaws provide that "the Faculty shall have full responsibility for the design and implementation of the academic program of the College." It fulfills this duty through depart- mental decisionmaking which results in a recom- mendation regarding course offerings by the de- partment's chairman to the faculty's curriculum study committee. 17 This committee undertakes a continuing review of all matters relating to curricu- lum and then makes recommendations to the facul- ty.' 8 Ultimate approval of all additions or deletions t" Uncontradicted testimony in the record indicates that, in his 7 years in this position, Dr. Todd has never rejected a department's choice for chairman. " There is a faculty nominations committee which is responsible for preparing lists of nominees for vacancies on all standing committees. In addition the president and the academic dean of the college are ex officio members of all faculty committees when not specifically designated as voting members of those committees " Each department also controls the subject matter of what is taught in each course. " Designated administrative membership on this committee is limited to the academic dean and an elected professional librrian. In addition to this committee, the interim term and spcal program committees of the faculty are involved in planning the College's curriculum. The interim term committee whose designated membership includes the academic dean, schedules the course offerings available for the I-month session be- tween the fall and spring terms, in cooperation with the academic dean, of courses rest with the faculty through the faculty council. B. Course Schedules and Teaching Loads Not only does the Thiel College faculty deter- mine which courses will be offered, but it is also intimately involved in the technical aspects of set- ting up the course schedules and equitably dividing the teaching load. That is, it overses the "imple- mentation" of the curriculum. Each chairman as- signs classes, balances the size of classes, and co- ordinates the work among department members. The chairman's duties also include maintaining records of departmental faculty annual teaching loads. While Dr. Todd testified that it is the de- partment chairman who determines who will teach which courses, Dr. John Nichols, head of the mathematics department, stated that, at least in his division, the class assignments are decided upon jointly with the faculty members. C. Grading System and Policies The bylaws provide that the faculty council su- pervises the overall academic performance of the College, including monitoring and analyzing stu- dent grade levels. There is also an academic stand- ing committee, whose functions involve assisting the academic dean in maintaining the College's high standards of performance, examining the records of all probationary students to determine their continuing status at the College, and making recommendations to the academic dean or faculty regarding matters related to academic standards. 9 Further, the faculty constitution expressly states that it is the faculty's legislative duty to establish the requirements for retention in the College. D. Admission and Marticulation Standards Under the faculty constitution, the faculty estab- lishes academic requirements for admission to the College. In addition, the bylaws provide that the faculty, through its academic standing committee, review all requests for readmission. E. Degree and Graduation Requirements The constitution and the record also reveal that it is the faculty which determines the requirements for obtaining all academic degrees and which certi- fies to the board of trustees, for its approval, those the curriculum committee, faculty, and students, with the approval of the faculty council. The special program committee, on the other hand, in- vestigates new courses of studies not within the jurisdiction of other com- mittees. " The designated administrators on this committee include the aca- demic dean, the assistant director of institutional data (records), the dean of students, and the director of advising and counseling. 583 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD students who are eligible for graduation. The bylaws also provide that the faculty executive com- mittee is to consider student petition for exceptions to the College's academic requirements. F. Budgetary Matters The evidence indicates that the faculty is in- volved in the finances of the College from the de- partmental to the institutional level. It is the re- sponsibility of the department chairmen, with the assistance of other members in their respective sec- tions, to prepare the annual departmental requisi- tion for appropriations, and the request for library purchases. Further, the chairmen make recommen- dations to the academic dean regarding such per- sonnel actions as salary increases, promotions, dis- missals, and the need for adjunct professors, which affect the overall financial picture of the College. Indeed, the academic dean's preparation of the annual academic budget is not undertaken until the chairmen's recommendations in the various above- mentioned areas are transmitted to him. 20 The faculty also concerns itself with the financial matters of the College on the institutional level. It is, in fact, directed to do so by its constitution. The faculty is to participate with the administration and the board of trustees on matters dealing with the long-range financial and economic planning and the growth of the College. Further, the faculty's bylaws state that the institutional planning commit- tee21 is involved in planning for the nonacademic future of the College. Moreover, the description of the functions of the faculty's committee on faculty salaries and fringe benefits sets out that at least one member of that committee "shall be present at all meetings when decisions are made regarding salary schedules, fee structure, budget and such other matters which would impact, overall, the financial status of the College." Further, "[M]embers of the committee shall be a party to any communications on matters of . . . finance and budget between board members and/or administrative person- nel ... ." G. Salary Issues and Grievance Adjustment The faculty salaries and fringe benefits commit- tee each year reviews the current salary and bene- fits schedules, and further makes recommendations regarding these items to the faculty. If approved, '0 Dr. Nichols, the mathematics department chairman, testified that, while his budget requests could be denied by an administrative officer, his department has always received its requested funds. The administra- tion has asked on occasion, however, that the department make certain cuts in its budget in view of the College's intermittent financial problems. This has been done where possible. " This committee's membership also includes a member of the board of trustees, a member of the administrative cabinet, and an alumnus. these proposals are then transmitted to the Col- lege's administrators and ultimately to the board of trustees for action. The executive committee also is involved in salary issues in the event of an individ- ual appeal from a salary determination. It is then the committee's responsibility to make a recom- mendation regarding this appeal to the academic dean and president. 22 As to grievances, in addition to the salary ap- peals just mentioned, the faculty's bylaws set forth a procedure to be followed if a problem involving a member of the teaching staff or the student body arises. Specifically, the process calls for a step-by- step approach to reach a satisfactory resolution of the grievance. With regard to faculty protests, these steps are to deal with the offending party di- rectly, then to take the issue to the department chairman involved, then to the academic dean and/or the faculty council, then to appeal to the president of the college, and finally to the board of trustees. The approach with regard to student grievances is identical with the exception of the participation of the faculty council executive com- mittee, instead of the council as a whole, if the aca- demic dean cannot resolve the problem. H. Decisions Regarding Hiring, Tenure, Sabbaticals, Terminations, and Promotions A review of the faculty's constitution, its bylaws, and the record clearly shows that the faculty par- ticipates substantially in the personnel decisions in- volving its members. In delineating the faculty's role in the decisionmaking processes of the Col- lege, the constitution specifically states that the fac- ulty shall "participate in the definition of policy concerning its professional status."2 3 The bylaws further explain the nature of this participation. The department chairmen are responsible for interview- ing candidates and, after consulting with their dis- cipline's professors, for making the appropriate rec- ommendations to the academic dean. The chairmen also make recommendations to the dean regarding salary increases, promotions, continuation of a teacher on the staff, dismissal, and tenure. The ex- ecutive committee must also review the eligibility of individual faculty members for promotions, con- tract renewals, tenure, sabbaticals or leaves of ab- sence, or continuation after retirement age has been reached, and must make the proper recommenda- tions to the academic dean. The dean is precluded " Record testimony by Dr. Nichols indicates that department chair- men may indirectly affect levels of pay. He stated that, if an outstanding evaluation is given to a teacher, such a recommendation may result in a higher level of remuneration for that individual. " The teachers are also directed to participate in the selection process for hiring the president of the College, the academic dean, and the col- lege pastor. 584 THIEL COLLEGE from taking action in any of the above-mentioned areas until he receives the recommendations of the department chairmen and/or the executive commit- tee. Moreover, the bylaws list the basic guidelines for employment, general and specific criteria for promotion and tenure, the procedures for evalua- tion, and even sample evaluation forms from the students, fellow faculty members, department chairmen, and administrators. Further, the faculty council monitors the student evaluations of the fac- ulty, and all of the data accumulated by the above evaluations is considered by the executive commit- tee in its decisionmaking procedures. 24 The record testimony also establishes the effec- tive nature of faculty recommendations concerning promotions, tenure, sabbaticals, and hiring and firing. In Dr. Todd's 7 years as academic dean there have been 20 promotions, and Dr. Todd con- curred in all but I of the executive committee's recommendations. Further, the evidence shows that Dr. Todd has followed all of the committee's recommendations on tenure.' The chairmen and the department members advertise vacancies, inter- view applicants, and then decide who will fill each slot. After consultation with Dr. Todd, this recom- mendation is then made in writing to him. Accord- ing to Dr. Todd, such a recommendation to hire or not to hire is always followed. Further, while Dr. Nichols indicated that his recommendation in this regard could be reversed, he also stated that during his tenure as mathematics department chairman his three positive recommendations resulted in job offers to the applicants involved. As to firing, the procedure begins either with a termination recom- mendation from the department chairman, if a fac- ulty member is involved, or with such a suggestion from the faculty, if the chairman is the subject of the complaint. Dr. Todd testified, without contra- diction, that with regard to the former the result has always been termination. The evidence shows that on at least one occasion a department faculty's negative recommendation as to its chairman also ended with his dismissal. As stated previously, in Yeshiva University the Supreme Court decided that the employer's full- time faculty members were managerial employees who were not covered under the Act. The Court found that the faculty at each of the university's schools effectively determined its curriculum, grad- ing system, admission and matriculation standards, " As budgetary considerations must, of necessity, be involved in per- sonnel decisions regarding the faculty, the faculty salaries and fringe benefits committee, whose duties are set forth more fully in sec. G, supra, is at least tangentially involved in the determinations in this area as well. " There is no evidence of the track record regarding sabbaticals. How- ever, Dr. Todd did indicate that he reviews recommendations regarding such leaves of absence in the same manner that he does those concerning promotion and tenure. academic calendars, and course schedules, and that its authority extended beyond "strictly academic concerns."2 6 Thus, the Court found that Yeshiva University's teaching staffs made recommendations in every case of faculty hiring, tenure, sabbatical, termination, and promotion and that the "over- whelming majority" 27 of such recommendations were followed by the administration. In addition, the Court found some faculties made "final deci- sions" regarding the "admission, expulsion, and graduation of individual students," and that others decided "questions involving teaching loads, stu- dent absence policies, tuition and enrollment levels, and in one case the location of a school."2 8 The Court noted that, under the definition of N.L.R.B. v. Textron, Inc., Bell Aerospace Co. Div.,2 9 managerial employees are those who "formulate and effectuate management policies by expressing and making operative the decisions of their em- ployer."3 0 The Court stated that, in a school like Yeshiva University, the faculty's professional inter- est "cannot be separated from those of the institu- tion," and that the teachers exercised authority "which in any other context unquestionably would be managerial." 31 In particular, Their authority in academic matters is abso- lute. They decide what courses will be offered, when they will be scheduled, and to whom they will be taught. They debate and deter- mine teaching methods, grading policies, and matriculation standards. They effectively decide which students will be admitted, re- tained, and graduated. On occasion their views have determined the size of the student body, the tuition to be charged, and the location of a school. When one considers the function of a university, it is difficult to imagine decisions more managerial than these. To the extent the industrial analogy applies, the faculty deter- mines within each school the product to be produced, the terms upon which it will be of- fered, and the customers who will be served.3 2 Although the Court concluded that the analogy be- tween the university and industrial setting could not be complete, it further stated that "[ilt is clear 444 U.S. at 677. I7 Id. Id "416 U.S. 267 (1974). Id. at 288. " 444 U.S. at 686. " Id. In fn. 23 of its decision, the Court stated that the record revealed the "predominant role" played by the faculty in decisions regarding hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, termination, and promotion. The Court further asserted that, in view of the supervisory as well as mangerial characteris- tics of such personnel determinations, it need not rely primarily on these factors, because it did not reach the issue of supervisory status. 585 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Yeshiva and like universities must rely on their faculties to participate in the making and imple- mentation of their policies." 3 3 We conclude that the Thiel College faculty makes decisions and effective recommendations in the overwhelming majority of critical areas relied upon by the Supreme Court in Yeshiva University.3' The faculty constitution and the faculty bylaws au- thorize the professors to play this role, and the record establishes that, through the faculty council, the faculty executive committee, and other faculty committees, such power is actually exercised. Like the teachers in Yeshiva University, the fac- ulty herein controls the College's curriculum; each department makes recommendations regarding course offerings (and course content) which are re- viewed by the faculty curriculum study committee, and which are ultimately approved or disapproved by the faculty through the faculty council. It also implements the curriculum in setting up course schedules and dividing the teaching load among the various departments' professors. Through the faculty council and its academic standing commit- " 444 U.S. at 689. The Court also limited its holding by stating that the managerial exclusion would only apply to those professional employ- ees whose activities "fall outside the scope of duties routinely performed by similarly situated professionals." Id. at 690. Therefore, those teachers who only "determine the content of their own courses, evaluate their own students, and supervise their own research" would be within the Act's protection. 444 U.S. at 690-691, fn. 31. ", There is no specific evidence concerning whether the Thiel College teachers are involved in decisions regarding academic calendars, student absence policies, enrollment levels, tuition, and the location of a school. However, art. II,B, of the faculty constitution, set forth in full supra, would appear to empower the faculty to make decisions in these areas. In addition, the Court clearly indicated that the faculties of only some of the 10 schools of Yeshiva covered by the petition effectively determined questions in these areas. 444 U.S. at 677. Last, we do not regard faculty involvement or lack of involvement in these areas as vitally significant. tee it supervises the overall academic performance of the College, including grade levels and academic standards. The faculty also determines who will be admitted and readmitted to the College; it estab- lishes the academic requirements for obtaining de- grees; and it certifies to the board of trustees, for its approval, those students eligible for graduation. In addition, each department prepares its own annual budget, which apparently is normally ac- cepted by the College. The faculty is also involved in long-range financial and economic planning for the College. The faculty participates in setting its own salary and benefit levels, and adjusts faculty and student grievances. Finally, the Thiel College's faculty makes effective decisions on hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, terminations, and promotions. Although, as in Yeshiva, ultimate authority is vested in the board of trustees, we conclude that the faculty of Thiel College, like that of Yeshiva University, does not have professional interests sep- arate from those of its employer, and that it neces- sarily plays a large role in operating the College. Thiel College, like Yeshiva University, "requires faculty participation in governance because profes- sional expertise is indispensable to the formulation and implementation of academic policy," and therefore must depend upon its teaching staff "to participate in the making and implementation" of its policies.3 5 We shall therefore dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. " 444 U.S. at 689. 586