Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc.

EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc. and United Faculty of Florida (Local 1880, AFT, AFL- CIO, FEA/United), Petitioner. Case 12-RC-5594 June 1., 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer William G. Franke. Subsequently, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for Re- gion 12 transferred this case to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs. 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 Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial er- ror. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, a private aviation-oriented uni- versity, has its principal campus in Daytona Beach. Florida. It offers degrees through the master's level in several aviation-oriented fields. The Employer's gross annual revenue exceeds $1 million. It concedes, and we find, that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Board has jurisdiction. 2. The Employer stipulated, and we find, that the Petitioner, United Faculty of Florida (Local 1880, AFT, AFL-CIO, FEA/United), is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No 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 for the following rea- sons: The University is divided into three colleges: The College of Aeronautical Studies, the College of Avi- ation Technology, and the College of Continuing Education which is not involved here. The College of Aeronautical Studies, which offers academic subjects, has six divisions: humanities and social science, com- puter technology, aeronautical engineering, aviation management, mathematics and physical science, and a language laboratory. Technical subjects are offered by the College of Aviation Technology, which in- cludes the divisions of maintenance technology, flight technology, aeronautical science, and aerospace sci- ence. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all full-time faculty members, including full-time adjunct faculty in the Colleges of Aeronautical Studies and Aviation Tech- nology,' except for those employed in the language laboratory in the former and those in the flight tech- nology division in the latter, excluding all part-time faculty and all other employees, guards, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the unit should include all full-time faculty mem- bers in both of the colleges. Regardless of college or division, all faculty mem- bers are required to have college degrees. The only distinction in qualifications is that more of those on the "academic" faculty have higher degrees, i.e., mas- ter's and Ph.D.'s, than those on the flight and mainte- nance technology faculty.2 However, members of the latter two divisions need Federal Aviation Adminis- tration certificates in addition to their academic de- grees. Unlike the rest of the faculty, the flight technology faculty has 12-month instead of 10-month contracts. We consider this insignificant, however, because all of the other working conditions, such as fringe benefits, service on faculty committees, and eligibility for ten- ure, are the same for the entire faculty regardless of college or division. There is further evidence of an overall community of interest among the whole faculty: Both of the col- leges are on the same campus, and all faculty mem- bers share the same facilities; all faculty members are responsible to the dean of academic affairs, are eligi- ble to serve on the faculty council and various boards and committees, and are members of the same faculty assembly. Nor do we consider it significant that some faculty members teach in traditional classrooms, oth- ers in laboratories, and others in airplanes.3 Several members of the flight technology faculty and all of those in the language laboratory do not have contracts but are paid on an hourly basis. How- ever, they are all full-time teachers who have the same duties, teach the same subjects, receive the same fringe benefits, and work approximately the same number of hours as the contract faculty. Since, in our The faculty in the aerospace science division, a part of the College of Aviation Technology, was excluded by stipulation because the teachers in this division are all r.lilitary personnel. 2 This distinction, of course, is of no consequence for the Petitioner, since it seeks to include the maintenance technology faculty in the unit. 3 While most of the student-contact hours of the flight faculty appear to be spent inside of airplanes. they also make use of "tutor rooms" for instruction. 242 NLRB No. 110 689 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD opinion, a mere difference in method of payment is no basis for excluding employees from an otherwise appropriate unit, we can see no reason for excluding the language laboratory or some of the flight technol- ogy faculty from the unit for this reason either and note, further, that the full-time adjunct faculty, whom Petitioner would include, also does not have con- tracts. Accordingly, we find no logical basis for excluding the language laboratory and flight technology faculty from the unit and reject Petitioner's contention that they do not share a community of interest with the rest of the faculty. We, therefore, find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate; and, since the Petitioner is not willing to go to an election in any other unit, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed. 690