President & Fellows of Harvard College

586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The President and Fellows of Harvard College and District 65, Distributive Workers of America, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-13715 May 1 I, 1977 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER On January 15, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 1 issued a Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding, dismissing the petition because he found that the unit sought by Petitioner did not share a sufficiently separate community of interest to justify creating a separate unit for them. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision, contending that a substantial question of law and policy is raised in that the Regional Director's decision represented a sharp departure from official- ly reported Board precedent and on substantial factual issues was contrary to the record evidence, and that the errors seriously prejudiced the rights of the Petitioner and the employees whom it sought to represent. By telegraphic order dated May 7, 1976, the Board granted the Petitioner's request for review. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs on review.1 The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, including the briefs of the amicus curiae, and makes the following findings: 1. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(I) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of approximately 1,192 unrepresen ted clerical and technical (including service) employees of the Har- vard Medical Area Schools-i.e., Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine, both of which operate under the faculty of Medicine, and the Harvard School of Public Health, operated as a separate school under the faculty of Public Arnicur Curiae briefs were filed by: The American Council on Education: Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts; The Trustees of Boston College; Brown University; Catholic University of America; College and University Personnel Associa- tion: Cornell University; Duke University; The Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Stanford University: University of Chicago; University of Pennsylvania; C1niversity of Rochester; Vanderbilt Universi- ty: and Yale University. The term "Medical Area" refers to the campus of the three aforemen- tioned schools which is located approximately 3 miles from the University's main campus. "Aner 24 days of hearing, the parties jointly moved that the Regional Director confine the hearing to the basic issue of the appropriate scope of the unit. referred to as "Phase I." By the terms ofthe mooon: 229 NLRB No. 97 Health. The petitioned-for unit includes employees of the Harvard Medical School for work at various hospital and research facilities which are affiliated with the Medical Area.2 Among the teaching hospitals are Beth Israel, Boston Hospital for Women, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, and the New England Deaconess Hospital. The research facilities include Animal Research Center and New England Regional Primate Research Center, Center for Population Studies, Biophysics Research Laboratory, Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Shields Warren Radi- ation Laboratory, Harvard-M.I.T. Program in Health Sciences, and Research Institute for Medicine and Chemistry. The Employer contends that only a universitywide unit, encompassing all unrepresented clerical and technical (including service) employees employed by the University, is appropriate. There is no collective- bargaining history for the employees in the peti- tioned-for unit, and no labor organization seeks to represent these employees in a wider unit.3 The Employer operates Harvard College, Radcliff College, 10 graduate schools, numerous museums, a variety of scientific laboratories, and a library system which serves all of the schools and research facilities. The chief executive officer of Harvard is the president of the University. He delegates administra- tive authority to vice presidents for finance, adrninis- tration, government and community affairs, and alumni affairs and development. The president also appoints the deans of the eight faculties which are responsible for carrying out the academic functions of the Employer. The deans are directly responsible to the president with respect to academic affairs, but deal generally with the vice presidents over adminis- trative matters. As of the date of the hearing, Harvard employed in excess of 10,000 employees. Of these, 2,169 were teaching faculty; 2,912 were professional, managerial, or administrative nonfacul- ty oficers; 3,591 were salaried clerical and technical (including service) employees; and 1,686 were hourly paid employees.4 II]f the unit petitioned for is determined to be appropriate, the case be returned to the Hearing Oflicer (Phase 11) for further hearing, the filing of briefs and a decision by the Regional Director on issues of unit placement. That if the unit petitioned for is determined to be inappropriate that determination be the decision and order ofthe Regional Director under Section 102.67@) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The motion was granted by the Regional Director on May 8, 1975. The hourly paid employees are organized by nine unions in separate uuiu dicus.~Ji.i employees, malntenancc employees, power plant employ- ees, food service employees, pol~ce oflicers, bartenders and dining room THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 587 The authority to establish wages, job classifica- tions, and working conditions for the entire universi- ty is delegated to the Central Personnel Office (hereinafter CPO). Uniform personnel policies are established by the Employer and published in the Salaried Personnel Manual, to which strict adherence is mandated. A11 nonteaching positions must be listed with the CPO. The employing department makes the actual hiring decision, but the specific terms of the offer of employment must be approved in advance by the CPO. Any exceptions to the application of the salary guidelines must be requested and justified by the hiring department and approved by the CPO. Located in the medical area is the Medical Area Personnel Office (hereinafter MAPO) which is the only branch facility of the CPO. MAPO is under the direction of a manager with a staff of six and carries out a variety of personnel functions only for employees in the Medical Area. These functions include salary administration, responding to inqui- ries regarding employee benefits, development and implementation of orientation programs, recruit- ment, job advertising, interviewing, and reference checking. Application forms for employment in the Medical Area are filled out in MAPO and copies are retained by that office. MAPO does not have the authority to establish job classifications or job descriptions. However, when hiring is done in the Medical Area the hiring department discusses and settles the exact starting salary with MAPO. While the department makes the final decision, approval must be obtained from MAPO, not the CPO, prior to any offer of employment. Ekfore the employee is added to the payroll, the CPO must verify that the job classification conforms to the posted job descrip- tion, that the salary conforms to the salary program, and that aff~rmative action job listing requirements have been met. The CPO has an employee relations division which is responsible for the handling of employment problems. The first step in review of employment problems is an informal grievance procedure. The employee must discuss the problem with her or his supervisor and, when necessary, with higher levels of supervision, department personnel representatives, or a representative of the CPO employee relations division. The record shows that, while some minor matters are handled by the branch staff, MAPO usually refers informal grievance matters to the CPO employee relations division. The second step in review of employment problems is a formal procedure which is followed only after the informal review has failed to solve the problem. The employees, employees engaeed in composition work, employees engaged in omet snd related w~rk,' .%d bindery and shipping employees. (Ihe last three are craft units located in the Harvard University Priming Oficc.) employee may obtain review by the dean or administrative department head and the director of personnel. Further review may be obtained by a three-member panel consisting of one member selected by the employee, one by the dean or administrative department head, and one who is chosen by the other two members. MAPO plays no role in the formal review procedure, other than referring the problem to the CPO. As stated above, the Petitioner contends that the clerical and technical (including service) employees employed by the Harvard Medical Area Schools constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Board indicated in CorneN University, 183 NLRB 329 (1970), that traditional principles for determining appropriate bargaining units would be applied to universities operating several facilities. These principles include consider- ation of such factors as the geographical location of the facilities in relation to each other, differences or similarities m skills and functions of the employees, the extent of employee interchange, degree of interdependence or autonomy of the plants, centrali- zation of management particularly in regard to labor relations, and prior bargaining history. In consider- ing these factors, the Board's task is not to determine whether the petitioned-for unit is the most appropri- ate. Rather, it is to determine whether the petitioned- for unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining5 We find, on examination of the entire record in light of these factors, that a unit consisting of all clerical and technical (including service) employees employed by the Harvard Medical Area Schools constitutes an identifiable group of employees with a sufficiently separate community of interests to warrant their representation in a separate unit. The Medical Area has a separate identity from the rest of the University in that it is geographically distinct. It is located approximately 3 miles from the University's main campus and consists of a cluster of nine buildings which span some four blocks. The Harvard Medical School occupies seven buildings- four laboratories, the administration building, Van- derbilt Hall, and the Library of Medicine. The Harvard School of Public Health and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine occupy two buildings adjacent to the Medical School. There are six other medical institutions within six blocks of the three Medical Schools-Boston Hospital for Women, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Children's Cancer Research Foun- dation, New England Deaconess Hospital, and Leland SfanfordJr. Universirv. 194 N1-4B 1110, 121 1 (!5)72). 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shields Warren Radiation Laboratory. Thus, al- though the Medical Schools are not operated as a separate administrative unit, they share a campus apart from the rest of the University and constitute a single entity identifiable as the "Medical Area." While 90 percent of the employees of the Medical Area schools work in those schools, 10 percent of the employees work in hospitals or research facilities which are related and/or affiliated to the schools, but are located at varying distances from the Medical Area. Some are on its immediate periphery such as Shields Warren Radiation Laboratory, Boston HOS- pita1 for Women, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Children's Hospital Medical Center, and New England Deaconess Hospital. Others, such as the Harvard-M.I.T. Program in Health Sciences and Research Institute for Medicine and Chemistry, are in Cambridge. Two facilities, at which approximately 68 Medical Area employees work, are Animal Research Center and New England Regional Pri- mate Research Center, which are located in South- boro, Massachusetts, 22 miles from the Medical Area. The Employer argues that by including employees who work at related facilities outside of the Medical Area, particularly those in Southboro, Massachu- setts, the Petitioner seeks a unit which does not have geographical integrity. We disagree. The great majority of employees in the petitioned-for unit work in the Medical Area. Only a minority of employees work outside the area and those employees are linked to the Medical Area by the fact that they are on the budget of the Medical Area Schools, their work is medically oriented like that of employees located in the Medical Area, and they are under the jurisdiction of MAPO. The inclusion of a small number of employees who are geographically separated from, but who have significant links with the majority of employees in the proposed unit, does not destroy the validity of finding a separate unit based, in part, on geographical considerations. The work of the employees in the Medical Area and related facilities differs from that performed by other clerical and technical employees in the Univer- sity in that it is primarily medically oriented. Although the work in the Medical Area involves skills and functions similar to those in other schools and departments of the University, there are some important distinctions. The unit sought within the Medical Area consists of 40 percent technical, 46 percent clerical, and 14 percent service employees, whereas the unit within the rest of the University consists of 8 percent technical, 87 percent clerical, and 5 percent service employees. The substantially higher percentage of technical e~n~loyeob in ;;LC Medical Area underscores the fact that, whereas other areas of the University may be involved in scientific research, there is a concentration of this type of work in the Medical Area which gives it a distinct character. A relatively small number of transfers occurs with respect to Medical Area employees. Of 249 transfers of salaried supporting staff employees between schools and major departments in the University during a recent 2-1/2-year period, only 49 were between schools in the Medical Area and other schools or departments. There is no evidence whatever of temporary interchange of employees between the Medical Area and other university schools or departments. The Employer itself gave recognition to the separate character of the Medical Area by establish- ing MAPO. Although there are numerous colleges, graduate schools, museums, and research facilities in the University, only the Medical Area has its own branch of the personnel office. Furthermore, MAPO is not a branch office which may be used by any university employee, as is often the case with satellite offices. Instead, it serves only the employees em- ployed by the Medical Area Schools and their related facilities. Although orientation programs for employ- ees in the Medical Area are available through the CPO, MAPO develops and implements orientation programs exclusively for Medical Area personnel. Hiring departments in the Medical Area need only get prior approval of offers of employment from MAPO, whereas other departments in the University must get such approval from the CPO. Unlike persons seeking employment in other areas of the University, those seeking employment in the Medical Area may apply directly to MAPO and be inter- viewed at the branch ofice. Although the application form is thereafter sent to the CPO, a copy is retained on file at MAPO. While the major work problems of all university employees are referred to the CPO, the employees in the Medical Area have the unique opportunity to bring minor work-related problems to MAPO for resolution. The very existence of MAPO, then, indicates the Employer's recognition of the fact that employees in the Medical Area and its related facilities have a separate community of interest. The Employer, however, contends that a finding that the petitioned-for unit is appropriate would give controlling weight to the Petitioner's extent of organization in contravention of Section 9(c)(5) of the Act. We disagree. Our conclusion here is based upon such traditional factors as the geographical separation of the Medical Area, the absence of interchange between employees of the Medical Area and other university schools or departments, the distinct meGi~d oiientdtioll ui the employees, the separate supervision of the employees, the separate THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 589 hiring of employees, the existence of a separate personnel office to serve the Medical Area employees exclusively, and the lack of prior bargaining history. Therefore, even if we consider the extent of organiza- tion by the Petitioner-a factor which we may consider together with other factors6 -it is clear that we are not giving it controlling weight.7 Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purpos- es of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All of the clerical and technical (including service) employees employed by the Schools which make up Harvard's Medical Area-Har- vard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine. and the School of Public Health- including employees of the Harvard Medical School who work at the following research facilities which are affiliated with the Medical School: Animal Research Center, New England Regional Primate Research Center, Center for Population Studies, Biophysics Research Labora- tory, Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Shields Warren Radiation Laboratory, Harvard- M.I.T. Program in Health Sciences, and Research Institute for Medicine and Chemistry. As stated above, the Regional Director for Region 1 granted a joint motion by the parties to continue the hearing in the instant case with respect to the issues of unit placement. We therefore remand this matter to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting such hearing an$ determining the unit placement of certain employees and/or categories of employees. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the above-entitled matter be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 1 for the purpose of conducting NL.R.B. v. Meiropoliton Li/e Imuronce Co.? 380 US. 438, 4 4 1 4 2 ( 1965); Merropoliran Li/e Insurance Company ( Woonsochw, R. I.), 156 NLRB 1408, 1413 (1966). ' It is apparent from the attached dissent that there is no dispute about the facts underlyng this decision, and little difference over the applicable principles. Rather. the only difirence is in the interpretation and significance to be accorded these facts and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom on the basis of well-established principles which the Board has heretofore followed in cases of this kind. This type of d~sagreement is frequent and to be expected in highly detailed factual situations, as Board Members reach their individual evaluation of the facts. Our colleagues' conclusion. and their asserted distress. that this decision represents a departure-indeed a "highly undesirable departurev-from Board prece- dent regarding appropriate bargaining units for nonprofessional employees of universities therefore seems unfounded. Our colleagues cite no Board precedents from which this decision allegedly departs. Nor do our . .cdltdguc-s ixph;n thpv fp-r lhnf this deci5ion wJ1 "only further enacerhate the already unstable state of labor relations on our Nat~on's campuses." Indeed, we have no evidence of record or any other knowledge that the such further hearing as may be necessary to determine the unit placement of certain employees and/or categories of employees and for such further actions as may be consistent with this Decision on Review and Order. MEMBERS PENELLO and WALTHER, dissenting: We disagree with our colleagues' determination that a unit limited to employees who (1) constitute about one-third of Harvard's approximately 3,600 salaried clerical and technical (including service) employees and (2) are employed in only 3 of the University's 10 graduate schools, each of which deals with the University as a separate entity, is appropri- ate. In our judgment, the Regional Director was clearly correct in dismissing the petition on the basis that the employees sought "do not share a sufficient- ly special community of interests which would justify creating a separate unit for them." Today's decision represents nothing short of Board sanctioning of piecemeal department-by-department organizing of nonprofessional employees on campus-a result which on this record, we submit, is consistent with neither Board precedent nor with sound collective- bargaining principles.8 The Petitioner seeks to represent the salaried clerical, technical, and service employees who are employed in Harvard's "Medical Area." The parties, with the consent of the Regional Director, have agreed that this phase of the proceeding should be limited to determining appropriate unit scope. By way of background, ever since the Board's assertion of jurisdiction over colleges and universities in 1970,g we have sought in determining issues of unit scope on campus to join together all employees who share a common interest in working conditions into a unit which coincides with a recognizable adrninistra- tive, geographical, or operational subdivision of the employer.10 In determining whether a unit which is less than universitywide in scope is appropriate, we have historically examined several relevant factors. present state of labor relations on our campuses is unstable. Certainly, we have no basis for believing that our decision will exacerbate this hypothetical condition. a Our colleagues in the majority seek to camouflage the legal and factual deficiencies in their decision by implying that their differences with us amount to nothing more than routine disagreement over a proper "evaluation of the facts.'. We do not view our differences with the majority as being quite so superficial. For, as we shall indicate below, the record evidence-particularly that which the majority advances (i.e., "evalu- ates")-simply will not support a reversal of the Regional Director. It is, therefore, not that our "evaluation of facts" requires sustaining the Regional Director, but rather any evaluation of the facts-including that of the majority-requires such a result. 9 Cornell University, 138 NLRB 329 (1970). lo For a thorough discussion of the factors which the Board relies upon in determining appropriate bargaining unils at colleges and universities. see Kennedy. "Educators' Role In Educaing the NLRB: ~equirement<f-a Complete Record," I Journal of College and University Lnw 305 (1974). 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD First, in order to minimize interference with existing bargaining relationships, we ascertain whether or not there has been a prior history of bargaining either for the employees sought to be represented or for other employees with whom they work." Secondly, we seek to determine the extent to which administrative policies-particularly those relating to labor relations and employment matters-are centralized in the university administration or decentralized among the various campuses, departments, or schools. Particu- lar emphasis is given to the question of centralization because, to the extent that policies concerning employee working conditions are centralized, mean- ingful bargaining at the campus or departmental level is largely an empty gesture.'* In addition to bargaining history and administra- tive centralization, we also consider the nature of the work performed by the employees sought to be represented and the skills which are required to perform that work. Job functions and skills are prime determinants of community of interest, and in order to avoid fragmented bargaining units it is important to group together all employees who are performing essentially similar functions utilizing similar skills. With these principles firmly in mind, it might well be appropriate for us at this point to recite the record evidence which compels us to find that the unit sought by Petitioner is too limited in scope to be considered appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. However, we would be hard-pressed to improve upon the Decision and Order issued by the Regional Director. In our judgment, the Regional Director has thoroughly analyzed the relevant evidence in this lengthy record, has completely examined appropriate Board precedent, and has skillfully applied that precedent to the facts in reaching a result which we find to be virtually unassailable. For this reason, we have elected to attach pertinent parts of the Regional Director's Decision and Order hereto as an appendix. Instead of reiterating what the Regional Director has already so persuasively said, however, we think it more instructive to examine the reasons proffered by our colleagues for reversing him. For, when their conclusions are compared with the facts which they offer in support thereof, it becomes even more apparent that the Regional Director has reached the only appropriate conclusion. At the end of their opinion, the majority refers to seven "traditional factors" which they rely upon in reversing the Regional Director. We shall analyze them in order. l 1 Cf. Claremonr University Center. Claremont Men's College, Homey Mudd College, Pirzer College, Pomona College, and Scripps College, known ar The Claremont Colleges, 198 NLRB 811 (1972); Yale Untversiy, 184 NLRB 860 (1 970). 1. Geographical separation of the Medical Area As noted, the petition herein seeks to represent salaried employees employed in Harvard's "Medical Area." This area is located in'the Roxbury section of Boston approximately 3 miles from the main campus, and consists of Harvard's Medical School, School of Dental Medicine, and School of Public Health. In addition, the area is also said to include five teaching hospitals and eight research facilities. The majority concludes that the medical schools and related facilites "share a campus apart from the rest of the University and constitute a single entity identifiable as the 'Medical Area.' " The evidence simply does not support this conclusion. While it is true that the medical school buildings are all located within a span of 4 blocks, and 6 of the 13 related facilities are located within a 6-block area surround- ing the medical schools, the remaining 5 facilities are located several miles away in other parts of Boston. In fact, 2 facilities employing 68 individuals sought to be represented are located in Southboro, Massa- chusetts, approximately 22 miles from the Medical Area. Given the fact that the employees included within the petitioned-for unit are spread throughout the city of Boston-and indeed throughout the entire Boston metropolitan area-the majority cannot persuasively rely upon geographical separation as a basis for finding a community of interest among the employ- ees sought. Whatever other reasons may exist for creating a community of interest, geographical separation may not be included among them because the petitioned-for employees, quite simply, are not geographically separate. 2. Absence of interchange between employees of the Medical Area and other University schools or departments As with the purported geographical separation, the majority's contentions with respect to transfers are simply not borne out by the facts which they themselves recite. Our colleagues note that "[olf 249 transfers of salaried supporting staff employees between schools and major departments in the University during a recent 2-1/2-year period, only 49 were between schools in the Medical Area and other schools or departments." These figures establish that, of all the permanent transfers between schools and departments universitywide during the control peri- od, 20 percent were either into or out of the Medical Area. While these figures may indicate that perma- l2 Compare Cornell University, supra, with Claremonf Colleges, supra. THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE nent interdepartmental transfers of clerical, techni- cal, and service employees at Harvard are infrequent, we think the fact that one in every five such transfers involves Medical Area personnel is hardly a strong argument for finding that the Medical Area person- nel share a community of interest separate and apart from their colleagues in other areas of the University. 3. Medical orientation of the employees Our colleagues in the majority discuss "medical orientation" in terms of analyzing the skills and functions of the requested employees. However, as they are forced to acknowledge, "the work in the Medical Area [performed by the employees in question] involves skills and functions similar to those in other schools and departments of the University." They contend, however, that in spite of this rather crucial finding there are "some important distinctions." These distinctions are that the work is "primarily medically oriented," and there exists a larger percentage of technical employees and a smaller percentage of clerical employees in the Medical Area than in comparable research depart- ments in the University. Such differences, they argue, provides the Medical Area with a "distinct charac- tnt " Lb,. Since the majority does not expound upon what they mean by "distinct character" and "medically oriented," we are left to speculate as to precisely what these terms mean. In analyzing the concept'of "medical orientation," it is important to note that the employees here sought to be represented are not in any way medical "specialists," such as doctors, nurses, anesthetists, and so forth. Rather, they are clericals, librarians, research technicians, and key- punch operators-individuals whose skills are readily transferrable to virtually any discipline. The record indicates, for example, that the techniques, proce- dures, and equipment utilized by research techni- cians throughout the University both within and without the Medical Area are similar. With respect to clericals, those in the Medical Area, as elsewhere, perform the usual secretarial functions, work at desks, type manuscripts and correspondence, take dictation, order supplies, etc. Similarly, the Medical Area library assistants sought to be represented maintain serial record files and index, catalogue, shelve, and purchase books in the same fashion as librarians throughout the University. Precisely the same situation pertains with respect to other employ- ees sought to be represented. In view of the above, it is evident that the essential nature ot' the work performed by the employees sought to be represented in the Medical Area, as well as the skills which are required to perform their responsibilities, are virtually identical to employees in the same classifications employed in other areas of the University. Given this similarity in work func- tions and skills, we give little-weight to the fact that the work may be medically oriented or the fact that the medical area may have proportionally more technicals than clericals than other departments. Camed to itslogical extreme, the majority's rationale would presumably result in finding other units of employees appropriate on the basis that their work is economically oriented, sociologically oriented, legal- ly oriented, etc. In our view, it is the nature of the work and the skills -required which creates a community,of interest-not its academic orientation. 4. Separate supervision We find it particularly puzzling that the majority relies upon this factor in reversing the Regional Director in view of the fact that it is nowhere discussed in their opinion. While our reading of the record indicates that the supervisors in the Medical Area do indeed have the power to affect the employment relationship with respect to decisions pertaining to hiring, firing, etc., supervisors through- out the entire University possess this same authority. In any event, such authority is exercised strictly within established university guidelines. Accordingly, we find little justification in relying upon this factor as a basis for concluding that t question interest. We have elected to discuss ,these two factors together because both relate to the effectuation and implementation of personnel. policies. As we noted earlier, the extent to which such poKcies are centralized or decentralized is probably the most important single criterion in determining whether a particular group of employees is entitled to separate representation. The record evidence with respect to centralization of personnel policies. is nowhere more clearly articulated than in the majority op colleagues st&: The authority to establish wages, job classifica- tions, and working conditions for the entire niversity is delegated to the Central Personnel fice (hereinafter CPO). Uniform personnel policies are established by the Employer and 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD published in the Salaried Personnel Manual, to which strict adherence is mandated. All non- teaching positions must be listed with the CPO. The employing department makes the actual hiring decision, but the specific terms of the offer of employment must be approved in advance by the CPO. Any exceptions to the application of the salary guidelines must be requested and justified by the hiring department and approved by the CPO. As this quotation so clearly illustrates, virtually all university employees' wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment-the very "stuff' of collective bargaining-is formulated and implement- ed by the Central Personnel Ofice (CPO). In view of this evidence, our colleagues are forced to admit that "the Medical Schools are not operated as a separate administrative unit." Indeed, the "Medical Area" is comprised of basically three separate schools, each of which deals with the University on its own, in the same manner as all other schools, and each of which does its own individual hiring. The majority attempts to dilute the importance of this factor by pointing out that, unlike any other department at the University, the Medical Area operates under a "Medical Area Personnel Ofice (hereinafter MAPO)." However, based upon the facts set forth in the majority opinion, described below, it is clear that MAPO lacks autonomy and that it functions essentially as a satellite of the CPO in implementing centrally devised policies. The majority's description of MAPO's responsibili- ties is divided into three main areas: (1) recruitment, (2) grievance adjustment, and (3) training. With respect to recruitment, the majority indicates that "[ulnlike persons seeking employment in other areas of the University, those seeking employment in the Medical Area may apply directly to MAPO and be interviewed at the branch office." The majority is literally correct, for, beyond conducting interviews and processing applications, MAPO has virtually no role in the hiring process. Application forms pro- cessed through MAPO are forwarded to the CPO with only a copy being retained in MAPO files. As is true throughout the University, the actual hiring decision is made at the departmental level. Our colleagues imply that, whenever a decision to hire within the Medical Area is made, prior clearance is required from MAPO but not from the CPO. In the very next sentence, however, the majority acknow- ledges that Scfare any employee can be added to the university payroll, the CPO must verify that: (1) the job classification conforms to the posted job descrip- tion, (2) the salary conforms to the salary program, and (3) the affirmative action job listing requirements have been met. Similarly, the majority argues in one breath that the hiring department must "discuss and settle" salary requirements with MAPO, and then in the next breath acknowledges that MAPO has no authority to approve an exception to the salary guidelines devised by the CPO. In view of these conflicting statements, we find the majority's conclu- sion that "[hliring departments in the Medical Area need only get prior approval of offers of employment from MAPO, whereas other departments in the University must get such approval from the CPO" to be at best misleading and at worst just plain wrong. With respect to the adjustment of grievances, our colleagues state that "[wlhile the major work prob- lems of all university employees are referred to the CPO, the employees in the Medical Area have the unique opportunity to bring minor work-related problems to MAPO for resolution." In spite of this bold assertion, evidence cited by the majority elsewhere in its opinion clearly establishes that MAPO has no independent authority with respect to the adjustment of grievances. They note, for exam- ple, that the CPO has an employee relations division which is "responsible for the handling of employ- ment problems." The initial step in resolving an employment problem involves what the majority terms "an informal grievance procedure" in which the employee discusses the problem with supervision. With respect to MAPO's role in such "informal" procedures, the majority states "while some minor matters are handled by the branch staff, MAPO usually refers informal grievance matters to the CPO employee relations division." Precisely what "minor matters" are handled by MAPO is left to our imagination by the majority, but the Regional Director cites as an example of such matters "advising a supervisor on how to word a warning letter." The second step in reviewing employment prob- lems is described by the majority as a "formal procedure" involving appeals to deans, administra- tive department heads, the director of personnel, or to a three-member review panel. As the majority is forced to admit, "MAPO plays no role in the formal review procedure, other than refemng the problem to the CPO." In our judgment, the miniscule role which MAPO plays in the processing of employment problems hardly constitutes the "unique opportuni- ty" which the majority would have us believe. To the contrary, the very evidence cited by the majority leads to the inescapable conclusion that, as with the hiring process, MAPO's role is cofineil to the mere channeling of employment problems to the appropri- ate CPO officer or other university official who alone has the authority to make an adjustment. THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 593 Finally, our colleagues argue that MAPO develops and implements orientation programs exclusively for Medical Area personnel. While it is true that MAPO personnel do conduct orientation programs for new Medical Area employees, it is also true that the CPO conducts courses in such areas as career develop ment, clerical skills, basic education, and supervisory training-areas pertaining to the basic skills which the employees in question require to effectively perform their responsibilities. Indeed, according to the Regional Director, during a recent period a full 17 percent of the individuals participating in the CPO training programs were employed in the Medical Area. When viewed in light of the very evidence relied upon by the majority, the correctness of the Regional Director's conclusion that MAPO operates essential- ly as a "satellite of the CPO" without autonomy and independent authority is obvious. As the majority itself is forced to concede, MAPO's role is limited to the routine administration in the Medical Area of personnel policies and guidelines which are centrally 7. Prior bargaining histo The majority accurately points out that there is no prior history of bargaining amwg the employees encompassed by the instant petition. As the majority notes, however, all of the University's hourly paid employees, including many assigned to the Medical Area, are represented. They have been organized by nine unions in separate units which, with the exception of three craft units located in the printing ofice, are universitywide in scope. Thus, many employees assigned to the Medical Area who work side by side with the employees sought to tie represented herein are already represented on a universitywide basis. Today's decision constitutes the first time that Harvard employees have been permit- ted to organize on a strict departmental basis. In our judgment, existing patterns of bargaining at educa- tional institutions should not be disrupted in the absence of compelling reasons to do so.13 There is, as the above analysis so clearly indicates, absolutely no justification for such a departure from prior bargain- ing patterns in this case. In sum, we find the majority's opinion to be both distressing and bewildering. Distressing because it represents a dramatic and highly unaesirabie depar- ture from Board precedent regarding appropriate bargaining units for nonprofessional employees on campus. The proverbial crack in the dam has now appeared and we can look forward to the &evitable flood of petitions seeking to iepresent employees on an individdcampus, department, or school bas$- all of which will constitute an unwarranted splinter- ing of employees and only further exacerbate 'the already unstable state of labor relations on our Nation's campuses. In addition to being distressed, we are also bewildered because virtually all of the evidence which the majority recites in their decision points towards an inordinately high dejree of centralization at Harvard. Not only personnel policies, but ac- counting, auditing, financial management, mainte- nance services, and health services, to name but a few, are also formulated and implemented on a centralized basis. Given this, and given the fact that the majority acknowledges that the nature of the work and skills of the employees sought to be represented are identical to those of employees in similar classifications elsewhere throu&out the University, the majority has actually made out a strong argument for affmi'ng the Regional Director's conclusion that the Medical Area clerical, technical, and service employees do not enjoy a separate community of interest. We are thus left to specdate why they reverse him. A .-. . In view of the foregoing, we would a f f i the Regional Director and dismiss the petition herein. '3 Cf. Cbremom Collegec, suprq Yak Unwersity. mpn , * APPENDIX , , The president ind ~ell~ws.of ~arvard College (Harvard herein) is a private, non-profit institution of higher education, founded in 1636 and opemting under a corporate charter, granted by the General C&rt of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, since 1650. It operates Harvard College, ten graduate level schools, various museums and other departments, primarily in Cambridge and several sections of Boston, Massachusetts. - Petitioner, after several amendments to its- petition, based upon evidence developed on the record; ultimately seeks to reprkerlt a unit of approximatelyJ 1192 employees of Harvard at its "Medical Area-6 and at certain facilities related to the medical area, who are all ''salaried supprt- ing staff'' in the general classifications of clerical and technical (including service) employ?. . - More specifically, Petitioner would include in its unit 447 clerical, 380 technical and 133 service employees, charged 5 All figures herein are approximate, as the record is replete wish numerous charts and graphs based on differing dates There is no spec~fic geographical or administrative entity known as the "Mecilcal Area," aAd ils confrzes tire m ~ s Aaniy &iud hi thi ::-xi However, as used herem, the "Medical Area" refers primarily to Harvard Medical School and Haward School of Medicine, both of which togelher operate under the Faculty of Medicine. and the Hanard School of PubIic (Continued) 594 DECISlONS OF NATlONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the payrolls of the three schools in the medical area, in 70 job classification^.^ In addition, it would include 122 employees in four classifications which Harvard contends should be excluded from any unit found appropriate.8 Petitioner would also include 110 employees (none of whom are in the four disputed classifications) who work at facilities "related" to the medical area, including Harvard owned facilities: Animal Research Center and New England Regional Primate Research Center (Southboro, Massachusetts) and Center for Population Studies (Cam- bridge); and including non-Harvard owned facilities: Biophysics Research Laboratory, Boston Biomedical Re- search Institute and Shields Warren Radiation Laboratory (all in Boston) and Harvard-M.I.T. Program in Health Sciences and Research Institute for Medicine and Chemis- try (both in Cambridge). Alternatively, Petitioner is willing to go to an election if the unit also includes some 142 employees working at 19 affiliated hospitals, five of which are in the neighborhood of the medical area and the balance of which are generally in Boston or within a radius of a few miles of Boston. Harvard contends that an appropriate unit would be "All regular full-time and regular part-time salaried clerical and technical (including service) employees of the University employed in Massachusetts, but excluding all other employees, all officers of the University, employees in existing bargaining units, professional employees, confi- dential employees, managerial employees, casual employ- ees, seasonal employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." Of a total complement of some 10,358 employees of Harvard, 2169 are teaching faculty; 2,912 are non-faculty oficers, including professional, managerial and administrative employees, and 1686 are hourly paid employees substantially all of whom are presently repre- sented in nine collective bargaining units. The University- wide unit contended to be appropriate by Harvard includes 3,591 salaried supporting staff. Historically, Harvard voluntarily subscribed to the collective bargaining concept, beginning in 1938. Since that time through voluntary recognition, state processes and Board procedures, there have developed nine units, presently covered by collective bargaining agreements with the following unions in the following units: Harvard University Employees Representative Association, 570 custodial employees, of whom 50 are assigned to the Medical Area; Maintenance Trades Council, 353 mainte- nance employees, of whom 29 are assigned to the Medical Area; Harvard University Police Association, 54 police officers, of whom 6 are assigned to the Medical Area; Local 877, Operating Engineers, 25 power plant employees, all assigned to the power plant which is located in the Medical Area; Local 186, Cooks and Pastry Cooks Health, operated as a separate school under the Faculty of Public Health. There are a number ofhospital and research facilities with which Harvard is afliliated in the immediate neighborhood of the three schools. ' The parties stipulated that all of these salaried supporting staff job classilica tions are clerical or technical (including service) classifications and that the employees in such classifications are either clerical or technical (including service) employees. The four classifications are Research Assistant 11, Business Program- mer I, and Scientific Programmer I and 11. As this involve. 11n;t ylsc~vne"t issues, the taklng of evidence and determination was deferred to Phase 11. (See fn. 34 supra.) Association, 595 food service employees in dining halls, of whom 18 are assigned to Vanderbilt Hall in the Medical Area; Locals 186 and 277, Waitresses Union and Local 34, Bartenders and Dining Room Employees jointly represent 33 employees at the Faculty Club in Cambridge. The following unions represent the following employees in units more limited in scope: Boston Local No. 13, International Typographical Union, 17 employees engaged in composition work; Local 300, Graphic Arts Internation- al Union, 24 employees engaged in offset and related work; Graphic Arts International Union, Local IGB, 10 bindery and shipping employees. These craft units are all located in the Harvard University Printing Office in the Allston section of Boston. However, there is no prior bargaining history regarding either the employees in the unit Petitioner seeks or in that which Harvard contends is appropriate. Neither Petitioner nor any other union seeks to represent employees in the more comprehensive unit contended to be appropriate by Harvard. Harvard relies on Murray Corporation of Americq 101 NLRB 313, in support of its contention that the history of bargaining among employees other than those in the unit sought should be considered as a persuasive factor in determining the appropriateness of the unit petitioned for. This factor has been considered and given some weight in George Washington University, 191 NLRB 151, 152, and Yale University. 184 NLRB 860,862, but has also been held to be not of controlling significance. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 192 NLRB 12 12, 12 13, fn. 2. Ultimate fiduciary, financial and operating responsibility for the entire University is vested in the "Corporation"9 with limited approval of the Board of Overseers required in certain policy matters. Ordinary administrative authority is delegated by the President to four vice-presidents in charge, respectively, of finance, administration, govern- ment and community affairs, and alumni affairs and development. The President, as chief executive officer, is a member of the faculties of the several schools and is primarily responsible for ". . .establish[ing] policies setting forth the conditions of employment of the supporting staff."1° The President appoints the deans of the eight faculties which are responsible for the academic functions at Harvard College, Radcliffe College and the ten graduate schools of the University. The deans are responsible directly to the President in academic matters, but deal generally with the four vice-presidents regarding matters within the scope of their respective delegated responsibili- ties." Over ninety percent of the employees in the unit sought by Petitioner have work stations in the three schools in the Medical Area, or in facilities geographically proximate to The "Corporation" consists of the President, Treasurer and five fellows, with authority conferred by the original charter and confirmed, with various modifications not significant herein, by the Constitution of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts in 1780 and several statutes enacted by the General Court, from time to time. '0 Revised University Statute No. 3. 1' Statute No. 6 states in part: ". . .Each Dean is the chief executive oflicer in the Faculty. College. or SckwI; is rrrynsi5!: Cz: :!I: 3:opc; preparation and conduct of its business and makes an annual report to the Resident." THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 595 it. The Medical School consists of five buildings with overa half-million square feet of space devoted to teaching and research. The School of Medicine, the three buildings of the School of Public Health and the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine are all located within the same block as the Medical School, and Vanderbilt Hall, the student dormitory, is across the street. Immediately adjacent to Harvard's Medical complex lie several affiliated teaching hospitals, including Beth Israel, Boston Hospital for Women, The Children's Hospital Medical C,enter, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital and the New England Deaconess Hospital. . There are nineteen (19) hospitals associated or affiliated with the Medical School. 0i' these, seven (7) privately endowed hospitals participate as members in a corporation known as Harvard Medical Center, the purpose of which is ". . .to improve and advance the knowledge, practice and teaching of medicine; ta assist in the advancement of medical research and investigation and the improvement of medical teaching facilities." The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and a representative of each of the participating institutions make up the Center's Board of Trustees. However, unlike some faculty unit cases12 there is no evidence in this record indicating that this body plays any role in establishing or implementing any policy regarding wages, hours or working conditions of the salaried supporting staff sought by Petitioner herein. Authority for the resolution of questions involving remuneration or other working conditions of two or more employees has been delegated by the President and the "Corporation" to the Personnel Office,l3 located in Cambridge, comprised of five divisions; Staffing, Personnel Service, Benefits, Employee Relations and Career and Organizational Development, which services the entire University. Located in the Medic# School Administration building is the Medical Area Personnel Office (MAPO), the only branch of the central Personnel Office, under the direction of a manager with a staff of six. For many years the central Personnel Office administered uniform policies applicable to salaried and wage earning employees (S & W). However, as hourly rated employees became totally organized, in units previously described, there evolved a basic program of uniform personnel policies, standards, procedures, classifications and salaries applicable to all non-exempt salaried supporting staff. This basic program has been compiled and promulgated to all departments with responsibility for personnel actions affecting employ- ees in the salaried clerical and technical (including-service) classifications and is embodied in the Salaried PersonneI l2 See: Universrfy ofMiami, 213 NLRB 634; Trusrees ofBarton ~ n i v e r s i ~ , I -RC-13,564. . - l 3 By vote of the Resident and Fellows of Harvard College, &led October 19. 1942: Manual. Strict adherence to the uniform application of the provisions, policies and guidelines contained in the Ma~ual has been mandated by the President with the approval of the Deans of the several faculties." Any exceptions to the application of salary guidelines must be requested and justified by the hiring authority and- approved by the central Personnel 0ffice.15 MAPO does not have the authority to grant such exceptions and relatively few examples of exceptions were demonstrated on the record. A detailed comparison of average salaries in the nine salary grades involving 45 classifkitions of supporting staff common to 789 employees in the Medical Area and 2,705 employees in other parts of the University reveals that in 16 classifications, the average is slightly higher in the Medical Area, in 20 it is slightly higher in the rest of the University and in 9 cases the figure was the same." - . . Not only in the Medical Area, but throughout the University, hiring of personnel is done by the department head, or principal investigator, in externally funded projects. However, in compliance with its Afflnnative Action Program, all vacancies must be listed with the central personnel office and MAP0 and must be posted for a minimum of five days before an applicant can be hired. If any special circumstance arises requiring'an exception to this polic , approval must be obtained from the Director of Personnel: Posting of job vacancies is done on bulletin boardc particularly in the central Personnel Office and at the MAPO branch and in some cases advertisements are placed in botli the University newspapb and the Medical Area paper. The record reveals severiil examples of independent placing of advertisements of vacancies, but also indEates that such deviations from policy have been called to the hiiing authority's attention and corrected. If a. vacan+ exists in the Medical Area, applicants are referred to the MAPO branch office which processes the nkcessaq f o m and transhits them to the central Personnel Off!& wh* personnel files are maintained on al1 employees, although MAPO maintains duplicate files on personnel @ the Medical Xea! The central Personnel Office, also processes transfers of personnel. During a recent two and a half year period, of 249 transfers Universitywide, 21 were into the Medical Area, 28 were out. of the Medical Area, and 16 were intradepartmbtal within the Medical Area As the-Person- nel Office does not maintain records of temporary transfers, there is no evidence on the record of this class of *' - -. personnel status change. The assignment of job classifi(a$ond &ordipg to skills, duties and responsibilities ii in the province of the central "Voted that whenever any question mvolving remuneration'or other working conditions of two or more employees occurs in any department of the University, notrce thereof shall immediately be given to the Office of Personnel Relations together w~th a statement of the matters at issue and the recommended solution, rf any. The Personnel Office will at once confer with the Department Head and endeavor to arrive at a solution which will be consrstent with general University poliv It is the .-:a: thzt Depdrtm ,... i;c& partlupatr In the negotiations with their employees, but it 1s essential that the negotiations be controlled by the Personnel Office Subject to the authority of the President and Fellowsf . 14 Memorandum from Resident Bok to'thc Deans, November 8, 1971. 15 Because of some competition fiom nearby hospitals during fiscal 1924, the Medical Area was granted some flexibility in its salary guidelines to achieve comparability. was done after approval by the Financial Vim Residenf central personnel and with the concurrence of Deans of other faculties. Since the end of fiscal 1974, however, the gjidelina for salaried supporting staff have been stabilized so that they are again comparable. '6 Petitioner has emphasized the laboratory-research nature of the unit it seeks. However, of ten classifications directly involved in this type of work, there are 392 in the Medical Area and 485 in the rest of the University. In six of these chs~fications, h e aver Area average is lower by $8 and $10 $7 per month. 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAnONS BOARD Personnel Office, although some reclassifications have been effected through MAPO, with final approval granted by the central office. On occasion, it appears that certain liberties have been taken by hiring authorities to reclassify a person who merited a salary increase but was at the maximum in the existing classification. The University Benefits Committee,l7 composed of the Administrative Vice-president, Secretary to the Corpora- tion, Director of Personnel, and the Deans of the Faculties of Medicine, Business, Law, and Arts and Sciences, among others, is responsible for the development and implementa- tion of retirement plans, insurance plans, and similar formal benefits plans, with routine day-to-day administra- tion of such plans delegated to the Personnel Office. AU clerical and technical (including service) employees enjoy or have optional access to common benefits, including among others, life, medical and disability insurance, a retirement plan, vacations, holidays, sick pay and leaves of absence for death in the family, jury and military duty and voting. The standard workweek for all employees in this group is 35 hours based on a 7 hour, S day week, although the record indicates a few individual instances of flexibility in reporting and departure times. All salaried supporting staff are included on a single payroll, receive Harvard paychecks, and carry the same format identification card issued by the Office of Fiscal Services. Personnel requisi- tion, payroll authorization and change of status forms are standard throughout the University, except that in addition to "Harvard University Personnel Office," forms used by MAPO carry the designation "Medical Area." When new employees are hired in the Medical Area, they are given an orientation program by personnel from MAPO, and some Medical Area employees voluntarily attend academic seminars given in the Medical Area involving topics related to their areas of endeavor. However, the central Personnel Ofice does conduct courses in Career Development, Clerical Skills, Basic Education, Supervisory Training and others, presented by staff members from the central Personnel Oftice and held, for convenience. in addition to the Personnel Trainine Center at ~ a m b n d ~ e , at the Business and Law ~chool< School of Education, Radcliffe, University Health Services, and in the Medical Area. In a recent period, 1,026 employees participated in one or another course, of whom 170 were employees from the Medical Area. The central Personnel Ofice has an Employee Relations Division which is responsible, among other matters, for the handling of infonnai grievances. ~~re~resentative of that Division testified that althoueh she has no countemart in MAPO some minor matters ire handled by MAP^ staff, such as advising a supervisor on how to word a warning letter. However, usually MAPO personnel refer mformal grievance matters to the Employee Relations Division in accordance with instructions given at staff conferences. During the past year, this representative (one of four in that Division) spent about fifteen percent of her time on '7 Estabhshed by vote of the President and Fellows, May 5, 1969. l 8 Section 12. l9 Med~cal Area Personnel Advisory Committee, the Joint Committee on the Status of Pizz:n, The :Jar.::? ?ieZ;-:! Schx~! Ccrnrdree sn Governance. and The Commission of Inquiry. 20 The Harvard Medical Area-Newsletter/Focus, July 2, 1974. problems involving Medical Area supporting staff, com- pared with ten percent for the School of Education and fifteen percent for the Business School. During the same period, she handled 19 informal grievances in the Medical Area and actually went to MAPO on the average of two or three times a month. Comparatively, she handled some 15 or 20 grievances at the Business School, 15 at the School of Education, 15 to 20 in University Health Services, two each in the Schools of Law and Divinity, and 460 in Arts and Sciences (the largest of the facilities). Although a Division representative does not have authority to order a supervi- sor to take back a discharged employee, employees have been returned to their jobs through persuasion, or an extension of time has been negotiated until the employee finds another position or a transfer can be effected. In the event the Division representative is unable to satisfactorily resolve the informal grievance, there is a formal procedure set forth in the Salaried Personnel Manual18 providing for formal review of employment problems at the level of the Dean or department head with the Director of Personnel. This same Division handles discrimination cases in comection with state and federal agency complaints, whereas MAPO is not involved in those processes. There have been, in recent years, certain committees established in and for the Medical Area,l9 each charged with the general purpose of investigating various faculty and staff employment problems or areas of concern and the effects of existing policies. Due to the efforts of these committees, favorable action was taken to implement a program of courses for credit, with tuition remission in the Medical Area, similar to the experimental program estab- lished by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for its employees, and permission for Medical Area employees to participate in Employee Appreciation Day was obtained. However, the purposes of these committees are, variously, to consider, focus on, review, gather information and compile data on problems and concerns of faculty and staff and to make recommendations to the Deans and "to work cooperatively with the University Director of Person- nel. . .who is responsible for making certain that all University personnel policies are administered centrally and on a uniform basis."" They are not part of the grievance structure. In a memorandum21 issued by the University Committee on Governance, a series of questions was posed, "in the hope that it will stimulate wide-spread discussion" (with a disclaimer of official sanction in the frontispiece). F'rimari- ly directed in content at the continuing fiscal problem of raising and expending money, it acknowledges the exis- tence of a principle that each "unit"22 should finance itself. This principle has found cliche expression as "Every tub on its own bottom" (ETOB). Harvard is also characterized in this memorandum as ". . .a confederation of semi-inde- pendent baronies, squirearchies, and small farms." In a more official documenf23 the statement is made: 2' "Harvard and Money A Memorandum on Issues and Choices," November 1970. " For accounting purposes, Haward operates with individual budgets :or 95 adrmn~s*r;ltive "umu" ( i c c i d i ~ ~ g xirwis). 23 Fmanc~al Report to the Board ofOveneen of Harvard College, 1973- 1974, p. 9. THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 597 The University is a decentralized organization consist- ing of approximately 45 funded departments, each of which is responsible for raising and administering substantially all of its funds; and, therefore, the University operates under the principle that such funds are restricted to use by that department. The President and Fellows of Harvard College (Corporation), a governing board of the University, has responsibility for approval of departmental budgets and other significant financial transactions at the department level. The University classifies funds as follows: Restricted: available only to specific departments, wheth- er externally (donor), restricted as to use within a department, or available for general purposes within that department. Unrestricted: controlled by the Corporation and available for any University purpose, including the funding of the activities of the University Department (central adminis- tration). Unrestricted-designated: available to specific departments by vote of the Corporation and not available for other purposes without the approval of the Corporation. Tradi- tionally, alumni of specific schools within the University make gifts of capital with use of income restricted to their specific schools. Patrons donate substantial sums to endow a chair in teaching in a specified field, or for research in a specific discipline, or for a myriad of other specific uses. There are some 3,000 separate funds with restrictions. These types of gifts fall generally into the Restricted class. Some gifts, however, although restricted to use in a certain school, are unfettered and available for use as current income. Some gifts are also unrgstricted to the University, but the use of which is designated to a particular school or department by the Corporation. These are the Unrestricted- designated funds. Approximately a fourth of operating income comes from government contracts and grants, most of which are specifically restricted as to use and require approval of the Corporation both as to acceptance and as to use, through the Office of Contracts and Grants. It is obvious that with assets of one and a half billion dollars and annual operating expenses of approximately $230 million, accounting procedures are complex. How- ever, almost all capital funds, from whatever source, are held by s subsidiary of Harvard-Harvard Management Company, 1nc.-for purposes of central investment. Each school or department with funds so held is credited with a proportionate number of units upon the basis of which it is credited with shares in the overall income. This operation is similar to the mutual fund concept. Of course, the restrictive use of such funds is identified and controlled. Although many gifts are restricted in use, in recent years Harvard has required certain limitations on restrictions, in the absence of compliance with which, it will not allow the gift to be accepted. For example, during fiscal 1974 these three schools had combined operalrq ~lxonles in excess of 5 7 miilion aoiiars, wlik over 35-&lEon coming f ~ o m contracts and grants. whereas the Faculty of Arts and Income units, identified according to restrictions on use? are credited to each school or department. However, in order to avail themselves of those funds, each such budget unit must submit its budget and have it approved by the Corporation. Through this process, the Deans of the faculties and department heads are made aware in the fall preceding the next fiscal year, in writing, of the approxi- mate amount of money anticipated to be available to their use. Based on these estimates and guidelines, each unit submits its budget for discussion and approval. The Financial Vice-president and the Corporation can, and have limited certain major operational items, such as tuition levels I'ees for housing and food and faculty salary increases Li the Medical School, a reduction in the numbers of students, faculty and staff in the School of Education. In regard to capital improvements, a major project in the Medical Area was rejected by the Corpora- tion for a year, until arrangements had been made for financial support of operating and maintenance costs. Therefore, there is central budgetary control, with some decentralized operational independence, or at least flexibil- ity within established guidelines. This operational flexibili- ty allows the Dean or department head to hire a few more or a few less personnel than it had anticipated. but no Dean has authority to change or depart from the existing salary program or benefit programs or job classifications as directed in the Salaried Personnel Manual. The three Medical Area schools are dependent upon so- called "soft money" from government contracts and grants to a greater degree than most other faculties.24 Although the presence or absence of such funds may expand or limit the number of personnel hired and facilities utilized, the record indicates that the availability of such funds has remained relatively stable in recent years, and that personnel who are paid totally or partially with such funds are not treated differently, with regard to salaries or fringe benefits, from personnel paid with funds from other sources. AU accounting, auditing and fmancial planning are centrally managed through the Office of the Financial Vice President, who spends approximately 30 percent of his time on matters concerning the schools and facilities in the Medical Area. The Ofice of Fiscal Services is responsible for the processing of all University payrolls, billing, and collections; and although any losses incurred are reflectec! in the accounts of each school or department, this office also handles accounts receivable. The Department of Buildings and Grounds maintains, improves, and repairs all physical plants throughout the University and also provides custodial services. Maintenance of utilities, housekeeping, food service, watchmen and police, and landscaping are all provided through central offices throughout the University. Although all schools in the Medical Area, as well as other schools and departments, dc some purchasing on their own, a high percentage is conducted through the central Purchasing Department. Health Services are provided on a Universitywide basis; although for convenience, in addition to the centrai Sciences, with an opera tin^ income of 77 million. received over I7 million ir "soft money." 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD infirmary in Cambridge, there are satellite clinics in the Medical Area, at the Business School and at the Law School. Of the approximately 1,082 employees in 70 job classifi- cations charged to the Medical Area schools, 1057 OCCUPY the same job classifications as 2397 employees charged to other schools and departments of the University. Although the relative proportions of employees in the major divisions25 differs in the Medical Area from the mixture in the rest of the University, the record comparison of those job classifications which were examined does not indicate a significant degree of distinction in job skills or functions. Further, there are disproportionate concentrations in the major divisions among the schools and departments within the Medical Area itself. Although there are extensive laboratory and other research facilities in the Medical Area schools~ and associated facilities, there are also many large facilities in the Cambridge area devoted to research and related teaching.?' Among techniques and procedures common to those job classifications more directly involved in laborato- ry work are: fractionation, gas chromatography, electro- phoresis, electron microscopy, cell culturing, biological assays, radio-irnmuno assays and surgical procedures on animals. Among items of equipment commonly used in Cambridge, the Medical Area and affiliated facilities are: spectrophotometers, electron microscopes, isotope coun- ters, surgical equipment, glassware, chromatographs and dessicators. These same areas have common hazards also, such as the dangers from broken glassware, animal bites, exposure to radioactive materials and chemical fumes. Precautions to control the effects of such hazards have been developed through a safety committee with Universi- tywide representation. However, the Medical Area has a manual, produced by Medical Area personnel, covering specfic safety rules which has not yet been formally promulgated in other areas, although many of the same safety measures are followed in corresponding non-Medi- cal Area laboratories. Secretaries in both the Medical Area and elsewhere perform the usual secretarial functions, working at desks, typing manuscripts, correspondence, grant and contract applications, taking dictation and ordering supplies. Some emphasis was placed on distinguishing Medical Area secretaries from others because they used interchangeable fonts on their typewriters with Greek and other scientific symbols. However, secretaries in Cambridge, connected wlth the several laboratory facilities there, use similar typewriters. Although Medical Area secretaries have occasion to refer to medical dictionaries, some in Cam- bridge also refer to medical dictionaries as well as specialized dictionaries in other disciplines. And although some secretaries work in laboratory areas in the Medical Area, they have counterparts in the Cambridge area, and the record indicates that their contact with actual laborato- 25 The Medical Area mixture is 40 percent technical, 46 percent clerical and 14 percent service, whereas the rest of the University is 8 percent technical, 5 percent service and 87 percent clerical. 26 The five buildings of the Medical School alone contain over a half- million square ieet or space devoted to teaCning ana research. 27 In Cambridge, the Biological Laboratories are conlained in a six-floor building with 150,000 square feet of research space. The Chemical ry procedures is minimal. Of course, there are many secretaries in the medical Area and in Cambridge who are not connected with laboratory work. Countway Library is among the largest libraries serving medical schools in the country, with 425,000 volumes and 5,000 periodicals. It maintains two branches in separate buildings of the Medical Area and another branch at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infinnary in downtown Boston. It is a component part of a system of forty-three units in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and thirteen specialized libraries maintained by other faculties. There is a messenger service operating daily among the members of the system. Although devoted primarily to the discipline of Medicine, Countway is not unlike other specialized libraries, such as those maintained in the Schools of Business and the Department of Zoology and the Biologi- cal Laboratories in Cambridge. The basic functions performed by Library Assistants at Countway, such as maintaining serial record files, indexing, cataloguing, shelving and acquiring, are all duplicated at other libraries in the system. Although the systems of cataloguing and indexing vary in some detail; some using wmbinations of letters and number, others using wmbinations of numbers and letters, and although each specialized library wncen- trates on acquiring works in its area of discipline, the basic functions performed at Countway are similar to those performed throughout the system. There is a certain time period required for a new library assistant to become familiar with the jargon and terminology used in any specialized library; this does not make Countway unique. Laboratory aides and assistants perform housekeeping chores, such as cleaning glassware used in all laboratories, and participate to some extent in simple laboratory experiments. Although there are more Animal Quarters Supervisors and Technicians in the Medical Area than elsewhere in the University, their functions are similar. Based upon the relatively limited evidence in the record concerning the functions of other job classifications, such as stafi assistants, data entry clerks, electronic technicians, photographers, keypunch operators, staff and' fmancial assistants and stockroom clerks, there does not appear to be any significant difference in their duties and f;&tions, regardless of their locations. The Medical Area is located in the Roxbury section of Boston, approximately three miles from the University's sprawling main campus across the Charles River in Cambridge. Its Business School and athletic facilities are in the AUston section of Boston, also approximately three miles from the Medical Area. Petitioner, however, includes in the unit it seeks some 68 employees at the New England Regional Primate Research Center and Animal Research Center at Southboro, approximately 22 miles from the Medical Center. It also seeks to include employees in facilities in other sections of Boston, some two or three miles from the Medical Center and some in facilities Laboratories occupy six buildings, and research 1s also conducted at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, the Division of Engineering and Applied Phys~cs, the Center for Behav~oral Sc~ences and in the Departments of .hthropolog~, Astronomy. Geological Sciences, Phys~cs and Psvchology, which Harvard would include and at Animal Research Center and New England Regional Rimate Center (at Southboro, 22 miles from the Medical Area). which Petitioner would include. THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 599 located in Cambridge, also approximately three miles away, while seeking to exclude certain employees charged to Medical Area school payrolls who work in hospitals and other affiliated facilities which are located quite near the Medical Area. As indicated herein above,Zs the parties seek a unit determination. The result reached below is founded upon an application of the principles enunciated by the Board in cases involving colleges and universities. Thus, in Cornell University, et al, 183 NLRB 329,336, the Board established the following factors as ". . .reliable guides to organization in the educational context. . .": In determining whether a particular group of employ- ees constitutes an appropriate unit for bargaining where an employer operates a number of faciliti es, the Board considers such factors as prior bargaining history, centralization of management particularly in regard to labor relations, extent of employee interchange, degree of interdependence or autonomy of the plants, differ- ences or similarities in skills and functions of the employees, and geographical location of the facilities in relation to each other. Since Cornell, ibid, the Board has found less than an overall unit appropriate in several cases involving units of faculty members, such as law schools; Fordham University, 193 NLRB 134; Syracuse University, 204 NLRB 641; The Catholic University of America, 20 1 NLRB 929; University of Sun Francisco, 207 NLRB 12; and University of Miami, 213 NLRB 634; and medical schools, Miami (supra) and Trustees of Boston University, 1-RC-13,564, on which Petitioner relies. However, the cases in which separate faculty units have been found are based upon such factors as dual-professionalism, diversity in salaries, differences in time required to attain tenure, dmerences in concentra- tions of higher academic rank; independent accreditation of the school, different academic calendar, absence of integrated curriculum and intervening governing structure, none of which are present herein. These cases are therefore found to be inapposite because of their factual distinctions from the instant case. There have been several cases involving the exclusion of non-faculty employees of medical complexes operated by universities involving the operation of hospitals, such as Duke University, 194 N L R B 236; Loyola University Medical Center, 194 NLRB 234; and Georgetown University, 200 NLRB 215. However, these and similar unit determina- tions were based, at the time they were rendered, upon an absence of jurisdiction over non-profit hospitals prior to August 25, 1974, the effective date of the health care amendments to the Act. Since that time, the Board has afforded such excluded employees the opportunity to determine whether they wish to be accreted to an existing unit or to remain unrepresented, Duke University, 217 NLRB 799, on the basis that had there been no jurisdic- tional infirmity in prior determinations, the unit would have been held to have been campuswide. 2s See fn. 3a. z9 See page 5, supra. In the instant case, Harvard does not operate its own hospital or complex, nor does it have an intervening administrative body, or separate vice-president for health affairs, nor does it receive income for rendering health care services, as was characteristic of Miami and Trustees of Boston University (supra). It is concluded that the facts herein more closely approximate those found in CorneN Universiy, ef al., 183 NLRB 329, and Tulane Universify, 195 NLRB 329. Utilizing the factors on which the Board rendered its unit determination in these two cases, the record reveals the following: Prior bargaining histov: No collective bargaining has been engaged in on behalf of the employees in the requested unit. However, as to other non-faculty employees of Harvard, bargaining has been conducted, with the exception of craft units, on a Universitpide basis. As stated,Zg this factor is not controlling in unit determina- tions, although due consideration has been given to it herein. As to centralization of managemenf, particularly with regard to labor relations and the degree of interdependence of the administrative units: in this case, the two schools of medicine and dentistry are administered as a single budget unit under the Faculty of Medicine, and the School of Public Health has its own faculty and budget. Although each faculty is academically autonomous and responsive through its Dean directly to the President, it is clear that in operational matters, including labor relations, there is no similar autonomous character vested in the Deans of Faculties or other administrative units who report through the several vice-presidents in operational matters. Thus, funding, budgeting, accounting, payroll, maintenance, dining facilities, utilities, protective and custodial services are all furnished and controlled by central management, through the staffs of the separate vice-presidents. Although there is one branch personnel ofice in the Medical Area (MAPO), its functions are those of a satellite of the central Personnel Office, as in Yale University, 184 NLRB 860, where there were three such branches. All personnel policy for salaried support staff is centrally devised and centrally administered. As indicated by the Salaried Personnel Manual, all employees in both the unit sought by Petitioner and that which Harvard contends is appropriate share the same salary schedule, identical job classifications and the same benefits or options. Such policies, benefits and procedures are not only mandated to be universally applied, but there is no evidence that the mandate had been violated in any significant respect.30 Considered particularly significant is the Universitywide operation of grievance handling, which the record reveals is performed according to universal procedures and with the personal participation of the employee relations specialists from the central Personnel Office, at stages where grievanc- es cannot be resolved at the departmental level. 30 The record reveals that whenever deviations from the mandated policy occurred, the oflenders were required to conform to the universal policy. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is concluded that the existence of this procedure, as heretofore described more particularly,3* coupled with the absence of high level grievance disposition authority in MAPO, reveals a lack of labor relations autonomy in the Medical Area. It is recognized that actual hiring is done in the M e d i d Area by dGartment heads and p&cipal investigators, but this is true of all schools and departments throughout the University and is performed wiihin the guide16es of the Personnel Manual. Thus, although the actual hiring is done by department heads and principal investigators employed in the two budgeting units which comprise the Medical Area, it is equally true that such localized hiring procedures are performed among the University's other budgeting units, of which there are no less than 40. In some instances, hiring authority is vested in an individual faculty member operating under a grant. Despite this, all such hiring is performed according to the Personnel Manual, applicable Universitywide. Thus, it is clear that the hiring practices in the bargaining unit requested herein are the same in all schools and departments throughout the University. These employment practices also existed in Cornell University, et at, 183 NLRB 329, and in Tulane University, 195 NLRB 329; but the Board did not fragment the bargaining units where other elements of autonomy were not present. As to the factor of d~rerences or similarities in skills and functions of the employees involved, although only a handful of the 70 job classifications common to the units contended to be appropriate were litigated, it is nonetheless clear that, as detailed hereinabove, the job functions of the disputed employees are substantially similar to those performed by other Harvard employees holding parallel jobs elsewhere throughout the University. It is recognized 3' See 595-596, supra that the specific research conducted in the Medical Area may be more immediately medically oriented, but, at the same time, it is equally clear that this situation is not unique to that area, nor do the skills, procedures, techniques, exposure to hazards, or use of equipment constitute a diversity of operational functions from employees scattered throughout the University who are similarly classified. This situation was present in Yale University, 184 NLRB 860, and contributed to the Board's holding that the Medical Area departmental unit was inappropriate. Again, the geographic proximity of the Medical Area, and the areas included in the Petitioner's proposed unit to the University proper, does not support the appropriate- ness of a segmented unit. Finally, the absence of substan- tial interchange of employees was prominently discussed in Cornell Universiv, et al, 183 NLRB 329, 336, where it was found that because of the presence of "countervailing considerations" which are found to exist herein, the separate unit was inappropriate. Based upon the above and the record as a whole, it is found, pursuant to the Board's precedent established for colleges and universities, that the employees in the proposed unit sought by Petitioner herein, or in its alternate unit, do not share a suficiently special communi- ty of interests which would justify creating a separate unit for them. As the Petitioner does not seek representation in the unit which Harvard contends to be appropriate., and as there exists the possibility that an appropriate unit somewhat less than Harvard's overall unit might be determined on a full record, no fmding is made as to what, if any, alternate unit would be appropsate.