Trustee Of Tufts College

TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE Trustees of Tufts College aod Tufts University Police Association, Petitioner. Case l-RC-14790 May 9, 1977 DECISION ON REVIEW BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER On December 9, 1976, the Regional Director for Region I issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of police officers located at the Employer's campus in Medford, Massachusetts, rejecting the Employer's contention that the smallest appropriate unit should include the police officers at its Boston campus as well as the Medford campus. Thereafter, in accor- dance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds, inter alia, that, in finding the requested single-campus unit appropriate, he made erroneous findings as to substantial factual issues and departed from officially reported precedent. By telegraphic order dated January 5, 1977, the Board granted the Employer's request for review and the election was stayed pending decision 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 in this case with respect to the issue under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is a nonprofit corporation engaged in the operation of an institution of higher education, with campuses in Medford and Boston, Massachu- setts. All of its undergraduate facilities and two of its four graduate schools are located at the Medford campus, with the remaining two graduate schools- the School of Medicine and the School of Dental Medicine-located at the Boston campus. The two campuses are approximately 6 miles apart, within the Boston metropolitan area. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit comprised of nine nonsupervisory police officers at the Medford campus, excluding seven officers at the Boston The only organized group of employees of the Employer is a service and maintenance unit encompassing both campuses, which is represented by the Service Employees' International Union, Local 254, AFL-CIO. 2 The record does not indicate whether the Petitioner would be willing to represent a universitywide unit of police officers. I The parties stipulated that the chief of police, captain, lieutenant, and 229 NLRB No. 89 campus. The Employer contends that only a univer- sitywide unit is appropriate. There is no collective- bargaining history for the employees in either of the units asserted as appropriate,' and no labor organi- zation seeks to represent these employees in a broader unit.2 In finding that the Medford campus officers had a community of interest separate and apart from the Boston campus officers, the Regional Director relied largely on his findings that there were separate immediate supervision and a lack of employee interchange. Based on our review of the record, we are convinced that a unit encompassing both campuses is the smallest appropriate unit here. As noted by the Regional Director, Medford campus officers are supervised by the chief of police, Herbert Voye, aided by a lieutenant and two sergeants. 3 Immediate supervision of Boston campus officers is performed by Captain Thomas Vallen- court, who has two sergeants reporting to him; however, Vallencourt and Voye confer at the Medford campus and Voye has set some personnel policies which are applicable to all campus police, as detailed below. Chief Voye reports to the director of grounds and buildings, William Slater; Captain Vallencourt re- ports to the director of physical plants, Larry Meinerth. Slater and Meinerth oversee the prepara- tion of budgets for the departments at the Medford and Boston campuses, respectively, which are then incorporated into the budget of the vice president of business affairs, John Mitchell. All campus police officers are subject to common personnel policies applicable to all employees of the Employer. 4 All hiring is subject to a universitywide affirmative action program, and applicants for job vacancies on the Employer's campus police force are first screened by the Employer's personnel office. A list of finalists is then submitted to separate three- person committees headed by the highest ranking police officer at the campus where the opening exists. Promotions to supervisory positions have historically been made from within each campus; however, there is universitywide posting of nonsupervisory vacan- cies (which are also published in a university newspaper), and some preference is accorded to transfer requests. Employee benefits are based on sergeants are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. As this stipulation is supported by record evidence, the individuals holding these positions are excluded from the unit. 4 Somewhat different personnel policies apply to the single organized group of employees mentioned earlier under their contract with the Employer. 523 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD universitywide seniority, which is carried over when officers are transferred to a new campus. 5 Campus seniority governs for purposes of selecting shifts and vacations. All officers are required to undergo 5 weeks of training at the state police academy and 12 weeks at the city police academy. The Employer also has an ongoing service training program, held at the Medford campus, in which all officers may partici- pate. The Employer requires that officers at the Medford campus receive training in cardiopulmo- nary resuscitation. Because of the availability of medical personnel at the Boston campus, such training is not required of Boston campus officers. Chief Voye is the only employer official with the authority to request the initial appointment and annual reappointment of campus officers as "special officers" by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 6 Chief Voye has also initiated changes in the criteria used for hiring officers, and he promulgated a firearms policy in 1973 under which officers must give a written report on every incident in which a gun is discharged and must get Voye's approval to use a weapon while off duty. The officers at both campuses wear uniforms which are the same color and are otherwise similar, although there are some minor variations between those worn at the two campuses due in part to the need to differentiate campus police from local police in the communities in which the campuses are located. The Employer issues the revolvers7 carried by the officers and forbids the use of other weapons on duty. All officers are apparently reimbursed for the cost of their licenses to carry firearms. All officers work similar hours in performing patrol duties at their respective locations. While officers do not substitute for one another at different campuses, Boston campus officers have been used frequently to supplement the Medford campus officers.8 At such times, Chief Voye or one of his supervisory officers calls either Captain Vallencourt or a sergeant at the Boston campus to request additional officers; he is not required to go through nonpolice levels of authority. Contrary to the Regional Director, we do not find that sufficient factors exist here to warrant a unit 5 There was evidence of at least three permanent transfers of officers within the past 3 years, and one "promotion" from clerk to officer accompanied by a transfer. 6 Appointment as a special officer gives campus officers the authority to make arrests. 7 The weapons issued to the Boston officers are a different make from those carried at Medford, but all are .38 caliber revolvers. 8 Emp. Exh. 10 lists the days on which Boston officers were assigned to Medford between March 1975 and October 1976. It shows that II officers spent a total of 74 days during this 20-month period working at Medford. The median time spent was 3 days per officer; the mean was 6.7 days. These officers were used to patrol the scene of a fire at the Medford campus for 2 limited to a single campus. With regard to hiring, although entry-level hiring is carried out by single- campus hiring committees, as indicated, the record discloses that those committees choose from among finalists initially screened by Employer's personnel office. In addition, the record reveals that the chief of police has had a significant influence on the hiring practices of the Employer, and all hiring decisions are necessarily governed by the Employer's universi- tywide affirmative action plan and personnel manu- al. Furthermore, as detailed above, it is clear that the Medford campus officers have substantial work contact with the Boston campus officers as a result of the latter's temporary details to the Medford campus. Based on the record as a whole and particularly the facts that these two small groups of officers are employed for a similar purpose, receive essentially the same training, perform common duties, have frequent work relationships with one another, are subject to common personnel policies, and enjoy common benefits, we find in these circumstances that the officers at the Medford campus do not have a community of interest sufficiently distinct and separate from that of the officers at the Boston campus so as to warrant the establishment of a separate unit as found by the Regional Director. Rather, we find that the following combined unit of campus officers of the Employer constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 9 All police officers of the Employer employed at its Medford and Boston, Massachusetts, loca- tions, but excluding desk officers, clerks, office clerical employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director in order that he may conduct an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that ending immediately before the date of issuance of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] weeks, and they were present for commencement, fraternity parties, athletic events, and other events throughout the year. While the record shows that community police were sometimes used in addition to Boston and Medford campus police, there was undisputed evidence that the Employer first attempts to assign its own officers temporarily before requesting local community police aid. 9 In the event Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election in the unit found appropriate herein, it shall so notify the Regional Director by written notice within 7 days of the date of issuance of this Decision. Moreover, as the unit found appropriate is broader than that originally requested by the Petitioner, the Regional Director shall determine whether its showing of interest is sufficient before proceeding with the election. 524 TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE MEMBER MURPHY, dissenting: In disagreement with my colleagues, and in agreement with the Regional Director (see the attached relevant portions of his decision), I would find a unit consisting of the police at the Medford location appropriate. The employees at that location are separately hired, supervised, and disciplined, have a separate seniority system for vacations and shifts, operate with a separate budget, have a separate personnel office, and even somewhat differ- ent uniforms. Although, as the majority states, they are hired for the same purposes as employees at the Boston location, occasionally work with those employees, and share with them some common personnel policies, these factors are not, when considered in light of the other factors, sufficient to warrant a finding that a unit consisting of the police at this separate location is inappropriate. Accordingly, I would affirm the Regional Direc- tor's Direction of an Election in a unit limited to the Medford location. APPENDIX All employees are subject to uniform personnel policies and procedures, except that the police officers who all have the same wage rates and fringe benefits, are given different vacations and holidays because of the three shift nature of their duties. The Medford policemen are supervised on a day-to-day basis by Chief of Police Herbert Voye who also hires and disciplines them and is responsible for approving all officer recommendations to the Massachusetts Public Safety Director for their appointment as special officers after they are hired. The Chief also formulates a uniform policy regarding firearms for all officers. The Boston campus policemen are supervised on a day- to-day basis by Captain Thomas W. Vallencourt who hires, disciplines and assigns overtime to them. The Chief of Police has no authority over the Boston policemen. Voye reports to William Slater, Director of Grounds and Buildings, while Vallencourt reports to Larry Miner, [sic] Director of Physical Plants. Voye and Vallencourt sepa- rately develop and control the budgets for their locations. The Boston campus police use a different radio frequen- cy than Medford for communication. There is no inter- change of officers although Boston's officers along with the city police of Medford and Somerville are given special assignments for major events on the Medford campus such as graduation exercises. Although job vacancies are posted in Boston and Medford, seniority is based on location for picking vacations. Additionally, Medford has ongoing service training while Boston does not. The Boston campus policemen have slightly different looking uniforms and use a different uniform supplier. The Board holds that, absent a bargaining history in a more comprehensive unit or the existence of countervailing factors, a single plant unit will be considered presumptively appropriate. Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629. In the instant matter, the separate day-to-day supervision of the Boston and Medford campus policemen including separate hiring and discipline, separate budgets, separate radio-frequencies, and different uniforms coupled with the lack of interchange indicate that they are separate operations and the presumption of a single plant has not been rebutted. In these circumstances, it is found the policemen in the Medford location constitute an appropri- ate unit. 525