Wisconsin Education Association Council

702 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wisconsin Education Association Council and United Staff Union Petitioner . Cases 30-RC- 4162, 30-RC-4163, 30-UC-198, 30-UC-199, and 30-UC-209 January 27, 1989 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On January 13, 1986, the Regional Director for Region 30 issued a Decision and Order and Direc- tion of Elections' in which he found that the Wis- consin Education Association Council (WEAC), the named Employer, and the Intervenors, various "local option" Uniservs (an administrative unit of NEA), are a single employer or, alternatively, joint employers of the petitioned-for employees in Cases 30-RC-4162 and 30-RC-4163.2 The Regional Di- rector also determined that there exists a communi- ty of interest between the petitioned-for local option Uniserv employees and the employees in the existing state option Uniserv-WEAC bargaining units. The Regional Director directed self-determi- nation elections among two voting groups of local option Uniserv employees: Unit A includes all Uni- serv directors employed by local option Uniservs affiliated with WEAC, the assistant executive sec- retary of Racine Education Association, the assist- ant executive director of Madison Teachers, Inc., industrial relations clerks, and law clerks employed by WEAC. Unit B includes all associate staff em- ployees (essentially clerical support staff) employed by local option Uniservs affiliated with WEAC. Those employees would be permitted to vote on whether they wish to be represented by the USU within the existing "professional" employee unit and the "associate staff" employee unit, respective- ly, of the state option Uniservs and WEAC staffs.3 1 The Regional Director dismissed the three UC petitions. WEAC filed the petition in Case 30-UC-209, and the Petitioner filed the petitions in Cases 30-UC-198 and 30-UC-199. 2 In essence, the petitions seek elections to determine whether the un- represented "professional" and "associate staff" employees of local option Uniservs wish to be represented by the Petitioner (USU) along with em- ployees in existing "professional" and "associate staff" units. The USU presently represents one bargaining unit of "professional" employees working on the WEAC staff and in "state option" Uniservs, and a second bargaining unit of "associate " employees on the WEAC staff and in "state option" Uniservs. "Local option" and "state option" Uniservs are described in the "Background" section, infra. 3 Based on his finding that neither the state option nor the local option employees described as "professional " meets the definition of "profession- al" within the meaning of Sec. 2(12) of the Act, the Regional Director further directed a separate election among the staff attorneys employed by WEAC, who are currently included within the existing "professional" unit and who do meet the statutory definition of professional, to decide whether they wish to continue to be represented in the same unit with nonprofessional employees. WEAC and the local option Uniservs each filed timely requests for review of the Regional Direc- tor's decision .4 The USU filed an opposition to the WEAC request. By telegraphic order dated July 8, 1986, the Board granted review of WEAC's and the Intervenors ' requests . Thereafter, WEAC and the USU filed briefs on review. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. On consideration of the entire record , the Board makes the following findings. Background WEAC is a labor organization representing school teachers and other school employees in the State of Wisconsin. It is affiliated with the National Education Association (NEA) and has approxi- mately 425 local affiliates.5 Prior to 1970, WEAC provided direct assistance to its affiliated locals by sending its own staff people to various locals throughout the State, as needed, to help with nego- tiations and contract administration. In 1970, NEA initiated the Uniserv program, by which locals- either individually, in the case of large, urban locals, or in groups of several smaller locals- formed separate administrative structures, called Uniservs, to provide these services directly to the locals and their members. (A local association must meet a 1200-member minimum to become a sepa- rate Uniserv unit.) This decentralization afforded the membership more readily accessible, permanent business agents and support staff. Both NEA and WEAC continue to serve as resources to the local associations by providing information, funds, train- ing, research, and other support to help them fulfill their representational functions. However, since 1970, this support has been channeled through the Uniserv staffs, which, in turn, deliver the services to the locals and members. With one exception, each of the Uniservs is an unincorporated association,s having its own consti- tution, bylaws, board of directors, and officers. Each Uniserv has a director (who functions essen- tially as a business agent) as well as clerical support staff. In the case of the four large urban locals- Madison, Green Bay, Racine, and Kenosha-no structural changes were necessary for them to ° The requests for review are limited to the Regional Director's dispo- sition of the issues raised by the RC petitions. WEAC did not seek review of the dismissal of its petition in Case 30-UC-209, and the USU withdrew its request for review of the dismissals of its UC petitions. 5 NEA, WEAC, and their local affiliates are under a system of unified membership; that is, by joining one of the organizations, an employee must also become a member of the other two. This overall union organi- zation is called the United Teaching Profession (UTP). 6 One Uniserv, Madison Teachers, Inc., is incorporated. 292 NLRB No. 68 WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSN become Uniservs The smaller locals, on the other hand, were required to aggregate into Uniserv councils to reach the 1200 member threshold to become a separate Uniserv 7 By 1974 nearly all the locals were organized into Uniservs and WEAC had disbanded its field staff, which had previously been responsible for servic- ing the locals and the membership By the close of the hearing in this case, only two locals, Monona Grove and Eau Claire, had not joined a Uniserv WEAC placed Monona Grove on a year's proba tion in 1974 because of its failure to join the pro- gram, but no further action has been taken despite Monona Grove's continued independence from the Uniserv system 8 Eau Claire, by agreement with WEAC, has been exempted from participating in the Uniserv program WEAC, therefore, provides services directly to these two locals As the Uniserv program developed, there was disagreement as to whether the Uniserv staff should be employed by WEAC or by the Uniservs themselves This resulted in the creation of two types of Uniservs the "state option," an arrange- ment under which WEAC tacitly employs the Uni- serv staff, and the "local option," in which the Uniserv council of the Uniserv unit (or the local association governing body of the individual urban units) has effectively acted as the employer Of the 30 total Uniservs, 27 are local option, including all 4 of the urban Uniservs 11 It is the employees at these 27 local option Uniservs who are at issue in this proceeding 10 7 Most of the composite Umservs were established by mutual consent of the locals involved If disputes occurred WEAC set up arbitration panels composed of disinterested Umserv unit chairpersons who made the final decision as to which Uniserv each local joined 8 WEAC bylaws permit it to terminate Monona Grove s WEAC mem bership for failing to join a Uniserv but no action in this regard has been taken 8 The local option Uniservs are as follows Bayland Teachers United Capital Area Uniserv North Capital Area Uniserv South Cedar Lake United Educators Central Wisconsin Uniserv Council North Central Wisconsin Uniserv Council South Central Wisconsin Uniserv Council West Chequamegon United Teachers Coulee Region United Educators Green Bay Education Association Kenosha Education Association Kettle Moraine Uniserv Council Lakewood Uniserv Council Madison Teachers Inc North Shore United Educators Northwest United Educa tors Racine Education Association Rock Valley United Teachers South Central United Educators Southwest Teachers United Tnwauk Uniserv Council United Northeast Educators WEAC Uniserv Council No 10 WEAC Uniserv Council No 18 WEAC Uniserv Council No 26/SLUE West Central Education Association and West Suburban Council The three state option Uniservs include Council 21 Winnebagoland Educational Staff Council and Winnebagoland South The profession als and associates employed by these Uniservs compose along with WEAC staff employees the respective USU represented units 10 This includes 37 Uniserv directors or assistant directors and 36 asso ciate staff employees There are four directors/assistants and three associ ate staff employees at the state option Uniservs Issues 703 In support of its representation petitions, the USU contends that WEAC is the sole employer of all petitioned for employees and that elections should be held to determine whether they wish to be represented by the USU within the existing so- called professional and associate staff units WEAC and the Intervenors contend, on the other hand, that each individual local option Uniserv alone em- ploys these employees and further, even if a joint employer relationship were found between the Uni- servs and WEAC, no systemwide bargaining units would be appropriate in the absence of an employ ment relationship among the various individual local option Uniservs The Regional Director found that WEAC and the local option Uniservs constitute a single em- ployer based on what he concluded to be their "high degree of interrelation of operations, partial common management, partial common control of labor relations, common accountability to mem- bers, and the absence of an arms-length relationship " In the alternative, he found that even if there is insufficient common control of labor rela tions to warrant a finding of single employer status, WEAC and the local option Uniservs jointly employ the petitioned-for employees In addition, he concluded that there is a sufficient community of interest between the employees at the existing state option bargaining units and the employees in the local option Uniservs to make two overall bar gaining units ("professional" and "associate staff") appropriate I I Based on our review of the record, we agree with the Regional Director's factual findings How ever, we find that the facts do not support his con clusions and therefore reverse his determinations on single-employer and joint employer status and find the local option Uniservs individually are the employers of employees at each location 12 Relationship Between WEAC and the Uniservs WEAC and the Uniservs-state and local option alike-encourage a public perception of mutual co- operation and coordination of efforts in order to enhance the goal of the United Teaching Profes- sion of providing superior representation for its membership In this regard, the parent organiza 1 i Some of the factors the Regional Director cited are the interrelation of operations the employees frequent contacts with one another the similarity of job skills and duties the generally similar rates of pay and working conditions and the practice of sharing employees among various Uniservs on a cooperative as needed basis 12 Our conclusions on these issues render it unnecessary to reach the Regional Directors unit findings 704 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, NEA, publishes a handbook that includes the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of every Uniserv in the United States, along with the name of its director. Similarly, WEAC's handbook and directory contain information about every Uniserv in Wisconsin.13 WEAC cites, through its newslet- ter and organizing materials , the accomplishments of various Uniservs as benefits of associating with the organization. In this way, the upper levels of the organization lend their greater visibility to the Uniservs and promote overall growth of the pro- fessional association. This relationship is largely the result of the fact that the Uniserv system grew out of the WEAC field system, in which the centrally based WEAC used its own personnel to carry out the same func- tions the Uniserv staffs now perform. The Uniserv system eliminated the need for central control and dispatching of employees throughout the State. Day-to-day administration is more efficiently han- dled on a smaller scale by this separate Uniserv level, created especially for that purpose. In order to establish some regularity and struc- ture for their relationships, NEA, WEAC, and the Uniservs (the latter individually) enter into what are known as tripartite agreements, which, in all but 2 of the 22 in evidence, consist of copies of a standard form with names and dollar figures filled in. The standard tripartite agreement, in spelling out the rights and obligations of the parties, speci- fies the amount of funding the contracting Uniserv will receive from both NEA and WEAC and, in turn, requires the Uniserv to submit a budget for inclusion within the agreement; and funds received by the Uniserv tinder that agreement must be spent in conformance with the submitted budget, with variations exceeding 10 percent of the specified budgeted amounts being subject to approval by WEAC and NEA. (In practice, however, the Uni- servs do not submit budget changes to WEAC and NEA.) In addition to funding and budget matters, the standard tripartite agreement requires the Uni- serv to observe WEAC/Uniserv guidelines,' 4 and provides that the composition of the Uniserv unit is subject to negotiations among the three parties; that Uniserv professional staff cannot be hired without the approval of WEAC and NEA; that written employment contracts must be executed be- tween the Uniserv and its professional staff mem- bers; and that employment contracts are subject to the approval of WEAC and NEA. However, WEAC and NEA have never failed to approve a 13 Uniservs are not identified in any of the listings as being state option or local option. 14 The WEAC/Uniserv guidelines are a second type of regulation ap- plying to the relationship between the parties. Uniserv's hiring selection or its employment con- tracts. The standard agreement also allows NEA to borrow each Uniserv professional for up to 20 days a year for training or other purposes, with NEA paying the costs and determining the content of the training. (The Uniservs may, however, consult with NEA over content.) Finally, this agreement requires the Uniserv staff to abide by the state and local leadership's decisions as to membership serv- ices, and to emphasize to the public the Uniserv's role in carrying out NEA's overall program.', The WEAC/Uniserv guidelines set forth the manner in which the Uniservs will be governed. Under these guidelines, the four large urban Uni- servs are headed by an elected executive board or committee, with the local president acting as liai- son between the board and the staff. In the com- posite Uniservs, policy is set by an elected council consisting of members from each constituent local, with an elected chairperson serving as liaison with the staff. These guidelines also provide for the em- ployment by the Uniserv of at least 1 staff person for every 3000 members. Job descriptions formulat- ed by local option Uniservs, WEAC, and NEA state that the Uniserv staff members must partici- pate in four NEA/WEAC activities a year, up to 20 days, and that these activities will be paid for by whichever of the two (NEA or WEAC) is spon- soring the activity. As to hiring, the guidelines state that WEAC and NEA are to submit a list of candidates to the Uniserv council, which will inter- view and select the person to be hired.', Employ- ment contracts covering terms and conditions of employment are then negotiated between the em- ployee (or the employee's collective-bargaining representative) and the Uniserv. Nothing in the em- ployment contract may conflict with the tripartite agreement. The guidelines permit the Uniserv to initiate suspensions, discharges, and nonrenewals of employees' contracts, as well as to conduct annual evaluations of job performance. Neither NEA nor WEAC is responsible for guaranteeing the contin- ued employment of the Uniserv staff. In addition, if any staff person of a local option Uniserv acts on behalf of any competitor of WEAC, the Uniserv 15 The two tripartite agreements in evidence that do not conform to the standard form involve the Green Bay Education Association (Green Bay) and Madison Teachers, Inc. (MTI) as the contracting Uniservs. Green Bay's agreement provides that it is not required to offer staff as- sistance to either WEAC or NEA and that it is not eligible to receive assistance from other Uniservs. MTIs includes a mediated agreement be- tween itself and WEAC that grants MTI the autonomy to establish its own policies, decide staffing needs , and retain its own legal counsel. All other provisions in these nonstandard agreements are the same as those described above. 16 The guidelines also encourage the Uniserv council itself to submit names to NEA and WEAC for their inclusion on the list of potential em- ployment candidates from which the council will choose. WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSN 705 employing that staff member could lose WEAC funding for up to a year The guidelines also pre- scribe certain equal opportunity hiring and employ- ment standards Guidelines applicable only to state option Uni- servs provide that their staffs are WEAC employ- ees and that hiring, transfers, and terminations are to be effected through agreement of both WEAC and the Uniserv s board of directors The Uniserv board directs day to-day activities, determines spe- cial needs for staff activity, provides information on which to base evaluations of staff performance, and may keep its staff from being assigned projects outside the Uniserv, except as provided for other- wise in the tripartite agreement WEAC is respon sible for all state Uniserv expenses, including staff salaries and fringe benefits, and WEAC receives an NEA subsidy to offset these costs in addition to dues from the Uniserv's locals Each Uniserv estab- lishes its own budget, exclusive of salaries, fringe benefits, and expenses WEAC provides services to all state option Uniservs in the following areas staff personnel and labor relations, employer tax fil- ings, unemployment compensation, bookkeeping, audits, and Uniserv agreement negotiations and ad- ministration Finally, four Uniservs are parties to a third type of special, separate agreement, called a mediated agreement, which details individualized treatment of these Uniservs All the mediated agreements re sulted from WEAC's efforts to prevent these Uni- servs from disaffiliating from WEAC Three urban Uniservs, Madison, Green Bay, and Racine, are permitted under their mediated agreements to retain their own legal counsel at WEAC's expense, rather than use WEAC staff attorneys The mediat ed agreement with the fourth of these Uniservs, Council 10 permits that Uniserv to choose on a case by-case basis, whether to use WEAC's attor neys or private counsel to handle arbitrations and other matters normally handled by the Uniserv di rector, allowing the director to devote more time to other matters Governance All Uniservs, state and local option, have their own constitutions and bylaws These documents commonly provide for a board of directors, elected officers, and a representative assembly The board and/or the assembly sets policy that is then carried out by the board and officers WEAC has no role in Uniserv policymaking and takes no part in the selection of Uniserv boards, assemblies, or officers WEAC has its own constitution and bylaws Its representative assembly, composed of individuals from each local association, meets yearly and sets policy, votes on a budget, and elects WEAC offi cers The board has 46 members, 34 of whom are from Uniservs, and it convenes several times throughout the year, setting policy when the as sembly is not in session The board hires an execu- tive secretary who serves as WEAC s chief execu tive and highest level staff supervisor Most Uni serv representatives to the WEAC board are, by constitutional designation, also members of their own Uniserv board of directors In this way, one individual serves a policymaking role on two levels Funding and Budget Uniservs receive funding from dues, WEAC and NEA subsidies, a UTP fund, and an extra WEAC subsidy to encourage the hiring of minority and women directors The chief source of Uniserv funds is dues, set individually (as are the Uniserv budgets) by the Uniserv governing body Less than half of a Uniserv's budget is derived from the NEA and WEAC subsidies, under the tripartite agree- ment At the time of the hearing the basic WEAC subsidy was $7 per member, while the NEA subsi dy was $12,200 per 1200 Uniserv members The UTP subsidy, available to Uniservs who choose to apply for such funds, and who are thereby required to conform to extensive operational guidelines deal ing with staffing, program, and expenditures, pro vides additional revenue for those Uniservs who are willing to comply with its eligibility restric- tions 17 And, finally, there is a $2000 per-year bonus for Uniservs that have a minority or woman director This bonus extends only for that director's first few years on the job WEAC's budget is prepared by its board, pres4 dent, and executive secretary and approved by its representative assembly During the most recent complete school year prior to the hearing, WEAC spent 12 7 percent of its total budget on Uniserv subsidies Uniservs' Business Management State and local option Uniservs alike provide for their own office space and equipment The Uni servs individually decide, without WEAC input, whether to rent or buy office space, however, WEAC will help Uniservs acquire office space if requested For example, Uniservs that own their own buildings generally form a building corpora tion as the ownership entity, and WEAC offers 17 The criteria for eligibility are established by a WEAC task force composed of representatives from each Uniserv Once a Uniserv is grant ed a UTP subsidy it is free to spend it in any way it chooses The record reveals that only 10 Umservs applied for and received this additional rev enue 706 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them model documents necessary for this purpose In addition, WEAC has helped arrange financing for Uniservs to purchase their own facilities Tax returns and IRS forms are filed by local option Uniservs themselves, but WEAC handles these matters for the state option Uniservs Most of the local option Uniservs use the same accountant that WEAC uses, but this is not required State option Umservs use the WEAC-provided book- keeping system, which local option Uniservs are also free to use Twenty three of the local option units took advantage of this service at the time of the hearing, but none of the large urban locals did so Under this arrangement, WEAC keeps separate accounts for each participating Uniserv, and the WEAC bookkeeper writes checks at the Uniserv's direction Free computer services and some paper is included as part of this service Uniservs pay for their checks, postage, tax form filings, and audits They are free to manage their own spending as they see fit, without WEAC interference, including making decisions regarding investments and other money management matters WEAC has a printshop that provides free labor to Uniservs choosing to use it Paper is available at a reduced cost and the Uniservs pay for it as well as for ink and other materials "I Uniservs may also participate in WEAC's computer network If a Uniserv purchases a compatible computer, which it may do at a reduced rate through an arrangement between WEAC and an electronics distributor, WEAC will provide them with free software and a data base for access to the system WEAC provides other `reduced rates' benefits as well, including hotels and car leasing Labor Relations WEAC's chief operating officer and administra tor is the executive secretary He reports to the board and is responsible for the overall supervision of the staff The staff is divided into five depart ments legislative, legal, business services, public relations/publications/printshop, and collective bargaining Each department is headed by a super visor The nonsupervisory WEAC staff, as well as the employees at the state option Uniservs, are in- cluded in the existing WEAC/USU professional and associate bargaining units The WEAC staff provides services to the Uni- servs and the membership, including gathering and disseminating information regarding collective bar- gaining, research, and coordinating political activi- ty The duties of the 'professional' and associate employees in the state option Uniservs are the same 18 Paper is available from WEAC at a reduced price regardless of the purpose the Uniserv has for it as their counterparts in the local option Uniservs, described below WEAC conducts its own labor relations with the employees in the existing bargaining units, negotiat ing agreements through a committee with the USU on behalf of the professional" and associate" units Although the negotiating committee includes some members of the WEAC board who are from local option Uniservs, there is no evidence that in dividuals from local option units have any other role in formulating or effectuating labor policy for the bargaining unit employees How day to day labor relations are carried out at the WEAC staff level is not clearly spelled out in the record Within the state option Uniservs there are only two types of employees directors, included in the "professional" unit, and clerical employees, includ ed in the "associate" unit Handling of labor rela tions in the state option units is divided between WEAC and the elected officers of each Uniserv In accordance with the WEAC-Uniserv guidelines, the state option Uniserv employees are hired and fired by agreement of the Uniserv board of direc tors and WEAC The guidelines further provide that while WEAC offers staff personnel relations services, the state Uniserv boards govern the day- to-day activities of their staffs Also, the WEAC/USU collective bargaining agreements govern the terms and conditions of employment of state option Uniserv employees The grievance pro cedure under these agreements provides that the employee's immediate supervisor considers griev ances at step 1, the WEAC executive secretary hears step 2 and either the full WEAC board of directors or a committee of the board hears step 3 grievances Under the agreements, WEAC regional coordinators participated in the evaluative and su- pervisory process" over the state Uniserv staffs, but were not considered full time supervisors Whether the state coordinators, who have replaced the regional coordinators, have assumed these quasi-supervisory functions is not indicated in the record The bargaining agreements also provide that seniority begins from an employee's first date of employment with either WEAC or the state Uniserv, whichever is earlier However, WEAC staff may not bump into state Uniserv jobs or vice versa in the event of layoff, albeit laid-off employ- ees from either group are given hiring preference when vacancies occur at WEAC or the state Uni serv Local option Uniservs, like state option ones, also employ directors and clericals Both the state and local directors' duties are essentially the same They include being available to their constituent locals for consultation, assisting and serving as WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSN 707 spokesmen in bargaining, handling "final offer" mediation/arbitrations, investigating and processing grievances, training local leaders in negotiations and grievance handling, processing state represen- tation and unfair labor practice cases, handling un- employment compensation hearings, and working with Uniserv members on committees for political action, public relations, and membership There are two classifications of associate em ployees at all Uniservs secretaries and staff assist- ants Secretaries perform typical clerical duties, i e , receiving visitors, answering the telephone, for warding messages, opening and sorting mail, sched uling meetings, paying bills, typing, filing, etc Staff assistants may also perform some of those clerical duties, but additionally perform research, prepare exhibits for mediation arbitration hearings, and other such independent work When the local option Uniserv program began, applicants for Uniserv directors applied with WEAC's Uniserv coordinator, who screened the applications and passed them along to the Uniserv hiring committee The hiring committee, composed of members of that particular Uniserv, reviewed the applications, decided whom to interview, and chose the individual to be hired subsequent to their interview Although the committees were not bound to select candidates from the pool referred from the WEAC coordinator, none were hired from outside that source As a result of this proc ess, several WEAC field representatives became Uniserv directors By the time of the hearing, the hiring process for directors generally involved the WEAC state coordinator forwarding applications to the Uniserv hiring committee, assisting in check- ing references, formulating questions for inter views, and possibly being present during the inter- view itself However the coordinator does not rec- ommend which candidate to hire, that is left to the elected leadership of the Uniserv This process is not rigid and followed invariably, however The record shows that the Lakewood Uniserv hired a director without any WEAC participation WEAC also requires that Uniservs advertise di- rector positions to women and minorities WEAC once required a local option Uniserv (under threat of losing its WEAC subsidy), that had hired a white male as director, to readvertise the position in order more effectively to reach potential minori ty applicants Following readvertisement, the Uni- serv again hired the same white male A few years later, the same Uniserv hired an additional director The WEAC coordinator advised the Uniserv that it must hire a minority or woman or not be funded for the position The Uniserv did neither, neverthe- less, WEAC funded the position WEAC plays no role in Uniservs' hiring of asso- ciate staff The practice in hiring associate employ- ees varies from Uniserv to Uniserv, with some leaving the task to the directors and others forming a committee for such purpose All terms and conditions of employment at local option Uniservs are set by negotiation between the Uniserv officials and its employees The negotiation procedures are set by each Uniserv without WEAC involvement The only WEAC restrictions are those imposed through the guidelines, described above, which mandate that the terms and condi tions of employment be embodied in a written agreement WEAC is not a party to the written agreements, nor does it review or approve their content 19 Each local option Uniserv decides for itself, without WEAC input, whether to recognize a bar gaining representative for its staff employees Of the employment agreements introduced into evi- dence, nine between Uniservs and directors, and six between Uniservs and associate employees are indi vidually negotiated Eleven directors' agreements and six associate agreements are between the Uni- serv and the USU on behalf of employees All these agreements, however, are signed by the em ployees individually and not by a union official 20 The employment agreements in evidence are comprehensive and cover subjects such as job de scription, pay rates, vacation, holidays, grievance procedure, and insurance Some follow the WEAC USU contract format, but each is inde- pendent and is reached separately through the mutual assent of the local option Uniserv and the staff member covered by the agreement Local option Uniserv personnel are not eligible to participate in the WEAC-USU retirement system Instead, the Uniserv contributes an amount agreed on between itself and the individual em- ployee into the employee's individual retirement plan However, the WEAC Insurance Trust, which provides insurance benefits to WEAC-USU bar- gaining unit members, is available to cover local option employees if the employment contract so provides Where this insurance coverage is includ ed, WEAC is identified as the nominal employer 19 The only exception to WEAC s nonparticipation in local option Uniserv negotiations concerned the salary level of a newly hired director for Central Wisconsin Uniserv Council West in which WEAC s execu tive secretary recommended a particular amount and the Uniserv press dent agreed In addition the record indicates that Uniservs applying for UTP funding who are thereby required to submit to extensive review of budget items including staff salaries and other compensation may be in fluenced by the UTP requirements when negotiating with employees 20 Because of this these agreements are not collective bargaining agreements but individual employment contracts even though they may have been negotiated with the assistance of a labor organization See e g Austin Powder Co 201 NLRB 566 (1973) 708 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In practice, however, representatives of the insurer communicate directly with the Uniserv rather than WEAC None of the contracts calls for WEAC participation during any step of the grievance proc- ess Approximately half of the agreements in evi dence require board approval of the local option Uniserv board before its director may leave the ge- ographic boundaries of the Uniserv to perform NEA or WEAC-requested work This would permit the Uniserv board to deny its director's services to NEA despite the tripartite agreement's provision allowing the NEA to call on the services of Uniserv professional employees for up to 20 days a year Finally, most of the agreements specify the duties of the covered employees Although testimo- ny establishes that job descriptions may be jointly produced by the Uniservs' teacher leaders and WEAC's regional coordinator, the frequency of this type of combined effort is not established Directors of local option Uniservs are technical- ly supervised by the Uniserv president In daily practice, however, supervision is not close because the presidents most often visit Uniserv offices after normal business hours, i e , after their regular teaching responsibilities are completed Uniserv di rectors, however, commonly provide the boards of directors with written monthly reports summariz mg their daily activities, and although their duties and responsibilities are set forth in the terms of their employment contracts, Uniserv directors set their own work agendas and calendars for accom plishing these duties Nevertheless, directors must have their vacation schedules approved by either the president or the executive committee of the Uniserv WEAC has no role in the daily supervision or direction of directors, whether state or local option The record reveals one instance when WEAC desired to ensure a local option Uniserv di rector's participation in a training session, this ne cessitated WEAC's appealing to the Uniserv presi dent to make the assignment to the director The president agreed to communicate WEAC s request to the director and the director conducted the ses sion However, the episode illustrates that WEAC itself is without authority to direct or assign a Uni- serv director to perform any task, and that it is up to the Uniserv governing body to oversee the job performance of its director NEA guidelines require each Uniserv to evaluate its staff Locals within each Uniserv evaluate their director, without WEAC involvement Despite the NEA guideline and WEAC's requests, however, at least one local option Uniserv, Rock Valley United Teachers, has not enacted procedures for staff eval- uations and no repercussions have resulted On the other hand, some local option Uniservs have chosen to follow WEAC's lead more closely and base their directors' evaluations, at least in part, on how well they have carried out WEAC's pro grams Personnel and labor relations matters for the as sociate staff of local option Uniservs are handled mainly by their boards of directors or presidents Hiring, firing, evaluations, discipline, and grievance handling in these Uniservs all fall within the board's or president's authority In many cases, however, associate employees receive work assign- ments not only from the Uniservs elected officials, but also from the director Day to-day supervision varies from one local option Uniserv to another, but the record shows that close supervision is not practiced because experienced associate staff per- sonnel can perform their duties without much oversight Telephone contact between the associate staff employees and the Uniserv president occurs on a regular basis at many Uniservs WEAC/Uniserv Functional Coordination WEAC has always had at least one staff member whose primary responsibility is to work with the Uniservs When the Uniserv program began, WEAC's director of field services also assumed the role of Uniserv coordinator In 1976, both positions were eliminated Around the same time, WEAC di- vided the State geographically into four regions and created the position of regional coordinator to head each region Regional coordinators telephoned or visited Uni servs in order to keep abreast of events throughout their regions Often regional coordinators acted as backups for Uniserv directors and assisted them when workload demands warranted In addition they convened monthly meetings of Uniserv direc- tors where information was shared regarding col lective bargaining issues, legal matters, and political developments Attendance at these meetings was encouraged, but not compulsory, and some direc tors (notably those from the large, urban Uniservs) elected not to attend WEAC took no steps to re quire stricter attendance The regional coordinator positions were abol ished in 1983 and their duties were consolidated into that of a single statewide coordinator Under the state coordinator system, significantly less time is available for individual dealings with directors However, the State remains geographically divided into four regions and the state coordinator periodi cally holds meetings in each region In addition, three times a year he holds meetings for all Uniserv WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSN directors and WEAC staff The record indicates that the state coordinator has some duties different from those of the regional coordinators, but there is no evidence that he holds any more authority over the individual Uniserv directors In seeking to ensure stability within the organiza tion as a whole, WEAC has occasionally inter vened in disputes arising between a Uniserv's elect ed leadership and its director 21 Because it has no authority over either the directors or the leader- ship, however, WEAC's role is limited to that of a mediator, using persuasion rather than authority in attempting to resolve disputes Ultimately, the par- ties themselves decide how to settle their differ ences Further evidence of WEAC's efforts at coopera- tion with the Uniservs is reflected in its budget that specifies that its various programs require the joint efforts of WEAC and the Uniservs These joint ef- forts necessitate interaction between WEAC and Uniserv personnel through regular meetings, such as the monthly regional staff meetings, arranged by WEAC's state coordinator for the region's Uniserv directors, and the annual statewide staff meeting, where all Uniserv directors-state and local-meet with the WEAC staff Expenses incurred by the di- rectors for attending these meetings are reimbursed by WEAC, and attendance at these meetings is en couraged, though not mandatory The record indi cates that directors from the large, urban Uniservs seldom attend these meetings, but WEAC has taken no action against them In addition, WEAC conducts a leadership conference every summer, where teachers who are elected to serve as repre sentatives from their locals receive training for their union-related duties State and local Uniserv directors, together with WEAC staff, conduct workshops and panel discussions at these training sessions Directors are paid only their regular sala ries for performance of these training responsibil ities, which are considered part of their function as directors Notably, however, directors from the urban Uniservs rarely attend these conferences or conduct training and WEAC does not attempt to force them to do so Other meetings requiring WEAC staff to work with Uniserv directors occur sporadically, and such subjects as retirement, public relations, labor law, and use of the computer network have served as topics In addition to these intraorganizational meetings, WEAC has also re- quested Uniserv directors to take part in outside 21 The record reveals one instance where a conflict within a Umserv grew so severe that the Uniserv disbanded and its locals had to be placed within other Uniservs and WEAC was not fully repaid for a loan it had outstanding with that Uniserv At least one of WEAC s motives in at tempting to settle internal Uniserv disputes therefore is to avoid similar cases of disbanding Uniservs and their consequent disruptions 709 training courses (at WEAC expense) so that the benefits can later be shared with others in the WEAC and Uniserv system Because its major responsibility and objective is to enhance collective bargaining between the teachers it represents and the school districts that employ them, WEAC and the Uniservs often work hand in hand with the locals in the collective-bar- gaining process Aside from conducting training sessions for teacher bargainers about methods of negotiation and being available as a resource for guidance during the bargaining process, Uniserv di rectors may also sit directly at the table as part of the bargaining team In addition, because Wiscon- sin law requires mediation/arbitration if the parties cannot independently reach agreement, WEAC will designate an outside Uniserv director to review a local's preparedness for that process when that stage is reached 22 Once a local is found ready, WEAC pays its costs in the medi ation/arbitration proceeding WEAC also has avail- able data concerning wages and other aspects of contract settlements from school districts around the State that locals may use in assessing their own demands, and the WEAC Insurance Trust will pro vide the information directors need to assist them with negotiations of fringe benefits WEAC offers its Uniserv locals computer software to facilitate analyzing bargaining information , as well as in house expertise in budgetary and financial matters, and specialists in the mediation/arbitration process, to further assist them in the bargaining process In general, Uniserv directors personally handle many quasi-judicial proceedings involving the membership, such as unemployment hearings and arbitrations, with WEAC's staff attorneys provid ing legal advice and guidance , on request Howev- er, under the terms of Council 10's mediated agree ment, all grievances and arbitrations are handled by WEAC lawyers so that the director can devote more time to collective bargaining matters Though this arrangement was entered into when Council 10 was a state Uniserv, it continues in effect now that it has become a local option Uniserv At the other extreme, mediated agreements with Madison Teachers, Green Bay, and Racine permit them to hire outside legal counsel at WEAC expense de spite the availability of the WEAC legal staff 23 In the instant proceeding, WEAC sought cooperation from the local option Uniservs by asking them to 22 Uniserv directors asked by WEAC to serve as reviewers of a local s readiness for mediation/arbitration are not obligated to perform this duty and may decline the assignment without penalty from WEAC 23 Although WEAC pays the bill lawyers hired under this arrange ment represent the Uniserv or the individual member involved in the pro ceeding not WEAC 710 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agree to be represented by a single attorney re tained by WEAC WEAC could not require the Uniservs to follow this suggestion, however, and one Uniserv chose to remain outside the case en- tirely and two others initially retained separate counsel 24 WEAC's political staff includes a legislative con sultant and four regional political action specialists WEAC also has a political action committee (PAC), which endorses and contributes money to candidates WEAC encourages the Uniservs to form their own PACs as well Uniserv PACs are recognized by the state election commission as sep arate entities from the WEAC PAC and they make their own decisions regarding whether and whom to endorse and the amount and kind of support to be offered To coordinate lobbying efforts, WEAC's legislative consultant and political special- ists communicate frequently with the Uniserv di rectors and associate staff when legislation affect- ing the profession is pending 25 Uniservs also occa- sionally host breakfasts for legislators and hold other political meetings that bring them in touch with the WEAC political staff In addition, the leg- islative consultant and political specialists fill in, as needed, for Uniserv directors in the performance of political duties associated with the director's pose tion WEAC and the Uniservs also work together on special projects For example, the women's intern program, paid for by WEAC and supervised by the state coordinator, trains women to become Uniserv directors by placing them within Uniservs to work on projects selected by the coordinator and the di rector However, there is no agreement that the participants will be hired as directors on the com pletion of their training, nor is there any guarantee of future employment WEAC has assisted the Uni- servs in community organizing, in organizing em ployees into units for bargaining, and in special ne gotiating projects The NEA Uniserv Staff Utilization or shared staff' program, the result of an agreement between NEA and WEAC, is a system whereby additional staff can be supplied to areas faced with strikes or other critical situations As part of this program, Uniserv directors are asked to select 2 months a year in which they may be called on to serve in areas outside their own Uniserv They, along with 24 The two Madison Teachers and Racine subsequently joined the other Uniservs and are represented by the WEAC recommended attor ney 25 WEAC and the Uniservs are not invariably in accord on political issues For example Madison Teachers lobbied against the bill requiring mediation/arbitration of contracts even though WEAC supported it as well as against a residency law that WEAC had promised not to oppose Despite these differences WEAC took no action against Madison WEAC staff members, have worked out of State under this program, and Uniservs have received additional staff from out of State pursuant to the same arrangement in other jurisdictions 26 WEAC maintains communication with the Uni- servs and locals through a variety of publications The collective bargaining division sends "Scope" directly to local bargainers, but most other publica- tions are distributed through the Uniservs For ex- ample, research bulletins on bargaining issues, the WEAC newsletter, leadership handbook, and infor- mation packets for delegates to the representative assembly are all sent to the Uniservs, which, in turn, disseminate the literature to the locals 27 In addition, WEAC distributes each Uniserv's news- letter to all other Uniservs in the State and shares information on job openings among all NEA affili- ates Although Uniserv "associate" staff employees meet formally with WEAC staff only once a year-during the annual training session for associ ate employees-there are nevertheless frequent contacts between these two groups during the course of their regular job responsibilities For ex- ample, associate employees of Uniservs using the WEAC bookkeeping system speak with the WEAC bookkeepers at least weekly concerning checks, vouchers, etc, directors needing informa- tion from WEAC's collective-bargaining or legal department generally have the associate employee make the request, WEAC's political events are commonly set up with the assistance of Uniserv as- sociate staff, and various types of communications with locals are funneled through the Uniserv asso- ciate employees Despite these many interactions and cooperative efforts, local option Uniservs additionally engage in activities entirely separate from, and in some in- stances contrary to, WEAC programs and policies For example, Green Bay sponsors its own group legal services, group insurance coverage, and a fi- nancial consulting service for its members North west United Educators, contrary to WEAC's policy of representing only members of the teach- ing profession in units of at least 25, represents any public, employees desiring representation At the time of the hearing this included 10 nonteaching bargaining units, 6 of which had fewer than 25 members Madison, too, represents several non- 26 Green Bays mediated agreement provides that it is not required to lend (nor therefore is it eligible to receive) staff assistance under this program Its director has however volunteered assistance during strikes 27 Although not every Umserv passes these publications along as WEAC intends WEAC does not interfere in this process WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSN teacher units 28 Lakewood Uniserv, in an action completely independent from WEAC, hired two hourly employees to perform community organiz mg, under the supervision of its director Most Sig nificant, perhaps, is the fact that despite WEAC's adopting statewide bargaining goals, the locals are free to disregard them Relations Between Uniservs Uniserv directors are routinely in touch with each other on work related matters In fact, some Uniservs share office space, thereby virtually assur ing daily interaction Their contacts are completely voluntary and generally informal, and they run the gamut from exchanging ideas and information con cerning bargaining, contract language, arbitration issues, grievance handling, and planning workshops to sharing work responsibilities In the latter cate gory, testimony establishes that directors sometimes substitute for one another, either by attending a meeting or filling in at the office if the director is out, as well as by performing specific tasks for each other, including brief writing, presenting arbi- tration cases, serving on grievance panels, and con- ducting training sessions As the record bears out in certain other respects, the large urban Uniservs tend to be more independent, neither asking for nor acceding to requests for assistance as often as the composite Uniservs Contact among the associate employees is less frequent than among the directors and that which does take place (except in shared office space situa tions) is usually by telephone Though occasional instances of inter Uniserv clerical assistance have occurred, e g , helping to set up a filing system and doing printing for a Uniserv that had a broken press, these examples are exceptions and do not happen on a regular basis As above mentioned, a few Uniservs share office space Bayland Teachers United and United North east Educators share an office in Green Bay, while the urban Green Bay Education Association main tains a separate office in the same city In McFar- land, Wisconsin, Capital Area Uniservs North and South share an office Central Wisconsin Uniserv Councils North, -South, and -West are housed to- gether in Wausau Lakewood Uniserv Council, North Shore United Educators, Triwauk Uniserv Council, West Suburban Council, and Council 10 are in the same building with WEAC in Milwau kee The state option Uniserv, Winnebagoland Education Staff Counsel, is in the same office as WEAC in Neenah, Wisconsin The remaining state 28 Because WEAC does not subscribe to nonteacher representation it does not reimburse Madison for legal services provided the nonteacher units despite the provisions of the mediated agreement 711 and local option Uniservs are in individual offices throughout the State In addition to sharing office space, Bayland Teachers United and United Northeast Educators mutually maintain the services of one Uniserv di rector, in addition to each having a director of its own Each Uniserv individually negotiates an em- ployment agreement with its own director and then jointly negotiates a separate agreement for the shared director Central Wisconsin Uniserv Coun- cils North, -South, and West not only share office space, but also operate essentially as a single Uni sere, having only one representative assembly, one board of directors, one chairperson, and one team that negotiates with employees of all three Uni servs The associate staff is shared among the three, but all are carried on the payroll of Central Wis- consin Uniserv Council South, with the other two reimbursing it for their share of the clerical serv- ices Similarly, Capital Area Uniservs North and South jointly employed a clerical employee during the 1970s when North was a state option Uni serv 29 That individual was carried on North's payroll and included in the WEAC/USU bargain- ing unit while, in fact, each Uniserv paid half her salary and benefits The employee later was redes ignated an employee of South (to enable her to re- ceive a promotion not available under the collec tive bargaining agreement) and the two Uniservs continued to bear half the costs of her employ ment Another individual was subsequently hired and placed on the -North payroll although she functioned as a joint employee and her salary was shared by both Uniservs After several years under this system, however, the Uniservs' boards of di rectors ended the arrangement and each associate employee became employed by only one of the Uniservs Council 10 and Triwauk operated under a similar arrangement, sharing a single associate employee, this system endured under Council 10's state and local option status alike Discussion From the foregoing, the Regional Director con cluded, in agreement with the Petitioner USU's po sition, that WEAC and the Uniservs, both state and local option, meet the criteria necessary to warrant a finding of single-employer status Citing the fac tors set out in Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1264 v Broadcast Service of Mobile, 380 U S 255 (1965), i e, interrelation of operations, common manage ment, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership, the Regional Director found 28 Capital Area Uniserv North has since become a local option Uni serv South has always been local option 712 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that WEAC and the Uniservs are sufficiently inte- grated to constitute a single-employing entity Based on our review of the same factors as applied to the facts of this case, we find that single employ er status has not been established The above-listed single employer criteria are well established, as are the principles that not all these factors must be present in order to make a single employer finding and that each case must be assessed on its own facts See Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit, 240 NLRB 206, 215-216 (1979), enfd mem 626 F 2d 865 (9th Cir 1980), and cases it cited In the instant case, in finding no arm's-length relation- ship, the Regional Director relied heavily on the fact that the Uniservs share the same essential pur pose with WEAC, i e, the collective representation of members of the teaching profession, and that they engage in close mutual assistance to achieve their goals We find, however, that the Regional Director gave overriding weight to WEAC Una- serv cooperative endeavors in concluding that their dealings generally were not arm s length," and by so doing failed properly to recognize that with re spect to the four basic objective criteria for estab lashing single employer, the evidence is insufficient to show that any of the criteria have been met In finding that the operations of WEAC and the Uniservs are closely interrelated, the Regional Di- rector relied on their existence within the multilay- ered United Teaching Profession (UTP), their holding themselves out to the public as a single entity, the fact that the Uniservs were created to replace and perform the duties of the WEAC field staff, and particularly their complementary roles in collective bargaining, contract administration, polit- ical activity, training of members and employees, and organizing new bargaining units He noted that their cooperative efforts often result in contacts- by telephone, in writing, and face to face-between the Uniservs and WEAC as well as among the Una servs themselves, albeit to varying degrees depend- ing on the Uniserv involved He found that sub- stantial Unaserv funding is derived from WEAC and NEA subsidies, and pointed to requirements set out in the WEAC Uniserv guidelines, such as the necessity that each Uniserv has a constitution, bylaws, a board of directors, and written employ ment contracts with employees, as evidence of WEAC's involvement in Uniserv affairs In adds tion, he deemed WEAC's mediating disputes within and among Uniservs, including its entering into mediated agreements with certain Uniservs in order to prevent disaffiliation, to be indicative of interdependence He saw WEAC's advisory role in the hiring process of Uniserv directors, involving submission of candidate lists, assistance in the inter view process, its right to approve final selection, and its promotion of policies and programs de- signed to enhance the employment of women and minorities as being illustrative of this interrelation Finally, the Regional Director relied on instances of WEAC staff assistance with Uniserv projects, similar mutual assistance among the Uniservs, and Uniserv staff participation in WEAC programs (es- pecially with regard to training and in the NEA's shared staff program) as establishing the interrelat ed nature of their operations Contrary to the Regional Director, we do not find that the evidence in this case shows substantial interrelation of operations Although it is true that common affiliation with UTP brings WEAC and the Uniservs within an umbrella organization shar ing the central purpose of representing members of the teaching profession, it is equally clear that they each occupy separate and distinct levels of oper- ation, have different roles and functions, and exhib- it a marked degree of independence of action Nei ther WEAC nor any Uniserv identified itself as a single entity with the other, but rather as individual organizations that espouse the same goals and sometimes combine efforts to achieve them 30 Moreover, that the Uniservs were created to re place the WEAC field system does not, as the Re gional Director appears to have found, mean that WEAC continues to direct their activities Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary, considering the au tonomy and independence exercised by the local option Uniservs Thus, it appears that the creation of the Uniserv to replace the WEAC field system represents nothing more than an effort to set up separate independent units to more efficiently and effectively promote common objectives Nor do the WEAC/Uniserv guidelines, requiring Uniservs to enact constitutions and bylaws and to establish boards of directors, mean that WEAC directs or controls how Uniservs should operate The pur- pose of these requirements and their effect is to create independent entities capable of self govern ment and decision making, rather than to give WEAC a say in the operation of the Uniservs In fact, none of these governing documents or boards provide WEAC any role in the local option Uni- servs' policymaking Further, the mere existence of many WEAC Uniserv cooperative activities does not support the Regional Director's finding Coop erative activities are, by definition, voluntarily as 30 The Regional Director apparently relies on the listings of Uniservs and their directors in NEA s and WEAC s handbooks and directories and WEAC newsletters publicizing Uniserv accomplishments to reach the conclusion that their operations were interrelated We find that these examples connote public relations efforts attuned to their acknowledged affiliation rather than represent integrated operations WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSN sumed as opposed to required or directed They usually are engaged in by the parties to promote or further common purposes By such cooperation, the parties hope to gain their objectives by jointly employing resources to their best effect There is nothing in this record to indicate that WEAC and the Uniservs participated in their cooperative en deavors for any other reason Regarding financial support, the Regional Direc- tor's own findings establish that less than half of a Uniserv's budget is derived from WEAC and NEA subsidies All Uniservs set up their own dues struc- ture and establish their own budgets without inter- ference or input from WEAC And WEAC's medi- ation efforts (described above), designed to avert breaks from the Uniserv system, involve WEAC's powers of persuasion rather than the imposition of authority, WEAC cannot require a Uniserv to modify its positions, it can only attempt to effect voluntary settlements Some of these settlements have resulted in mediated agreements that embody terms specifically recognizing the Uniserv's free- dom to establish its own priorities and follow its own methods Similarly, regarding WEAC's role in hiring, the Regional Director acknowledged that its role in reviewing applicants for local option Uniserv director is merely advisory, and testimony establishes that WEAC makes no recommendations as to which candidate to hire and that it has never withheld approval of the Uniserv's choice 31 More- over, WEAC has no involvement in the Uniservs' hiring of associate staff Finally, the Regional Di rector failed to give weight to the many instances in which Uniservs have not followed WEAC's sug- gestions, have declined to participate in WEAC- sponsored activities, have taken political positions different from WEAC's, have disregarded guide- lines with impunity, and have organized bargaining units not connected with WEAC Accordingly, we find, based on the same factors relied on by the Regional Director, that WEAC and the Uniservs do not function on a truly interre- lated basis Rather, they function as cooperative, independent entities sharing a common purpose, but differing in methods, direction of efforts, and source of authority The Regional Director also found that a degree of common management exists between WEAC and the Uniservs Although acknowledging that WEAC's governing structure is composed of an executive secretary, departmental managers, elect- ed officers, and a board of directors and that the 31 Even WEAC directed affirmative action efforts have not resulted in a Uniserv s selection for director being countermanded In addition it is important to note that the WEAC women s intern program is not linked to permanent employment with a Uniserv 713 Uniservs have their own boards of directors and officers, he nevertheless found interlocking man- agement because many of those serving on the WEAC board are from Uniservs and are often the same individuals who serve on their own Uniserv board On this basis alone he concluded that the policymaking functions for both WEAC and the Uniservs he, in part, in the same hands We find the Regional Director's reliance on that ground is misplaced because he failed to give proper weight to other factors that militate against a finding of common management As the Regional Director himself acknowledged, "no one member of the WEAC board or a Uniserv board has enough voting power to individually determine the outcome of decisions on either board " Further, a formal separation of powers exists between WEAC and the Uniservs WEAC and each Uniserv has its own governing documents, power structure, and defined lines of authority Policy is set by a Uni- serv's own representative assembly, leaving no role to WEAC Indeed, when WEAC wants Uniserv staff cooperation, all it can do is make the request by going to the Uniserv president who will decide how to respond If a Uniserv declines to comply with a request, no sanctions are imposed 32 In fact, certain Uniservs routinely decline to attend meet ings, perform training, or take part in the shared staff program-all without repercussions for these policy breaches Another example of the Uniservs' separate, inde pendent management is that they alone decide whether to function as a state option or local option Uniserv They can switch from one option to the other, at will, without interference from WEAC In addition, Uniservs decide for them- selves where to set up their offices, including whether to rent or buy their space Although WEAC stands ready to assist Uniservs in finding space and to obtain favorable rates for financing, this service, like others available from WEAC, is not contingent on Uniservs' acquiescing to WEAC control In light of the weight of evidence establishing the local option Uniservs' independence of oper- ations, we find that the fact that certain individuals may serve both as representives on their own Uni serv boards as well as on WEAC's board is not an adequate basis for concluding that the two share common management Next, despite his unequivocal finding that local option Uniservs each control their own day to day 32 Among the most extreme examples of the lack of WEAC manager al control over other operating levels are the refusals of Eau Claire and Monona Grove to join a Uniserv despite the ostensible rule requiring all local associations to become part of the Uniserv system 714 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor relations, the Regional Director concluded that WEAC and the Uniservs to "a degree share control of labor relations because a committee composed of local option Uniserv representatives participates in negotiating the WEAC/USU collec- tive bargaining agreement for WEAC Contrary to the Regional Director, we do not assign decisive weight to this fact Throughout his recitation of the facts, the Re gional Director invariably described the Uniservs as autonomous in their conduct of labor relations A significant element establishing this autonomy is that local option Uniservs were designed specifical- ly to act as employers of their own staff-in con trast to state option Uniservs whose staffs are treat- ed as WEAC employees (and who are part of the existing bargaining unit the Petitioner seeks here to expand) Local option Uniservs hire,33 fire, disci plane, negotiate employment agreements, grant time off, direct, evaluate, and adjust grievances of their own staffs without any interference from WEAC Because each Uniserv negotiates separately with its employees and each has different financial re sources and budget considerations, the employees' wages, fringe benefits, and other terms and condi tions of employment vary from Uniserv to Uniserv and from the WEAC/USU contract No contract of employment between a local option Uniserv and a staff member is subject to review or approval by WEAC The local option Uniservs are also free to recognize or not recognize a collective-bargaining representative for their employees, again without influence or direction from WEAC Testimony clearly establishes that Uniserv direc- tors and associate staff take direction from and are answerable to their Uniserv president, not WEAC, and that the style of management at each Uniserv is reflective of the individuals elected to lead the Uniserv, not WEAC In this regard, notwithstand- ing tripartite language to the contrary, if a Uniserv president does not wish to permit the director to leave the Uniserv to perform work for WEAC or NEA, the director will not leave the Uniserv As for local option Uniserv involvement in WEAC's labor relations, the Regional Director's own language best refutes the conclusion that there is a notable degree of common control of labor re lations WEAC conducts its own labor relations with the employees in the existing bargaining units It negotiates separate collective-bargain ing agreements with USU on behalf of the professional and associate units The WEAC sa As earlier described WEAC does not participate in the hiring of as sociate staff and has only a limited role in the hiring process of directors a role that the Uniservs are free to ignore negotiating committee is composed of some of the representatives of local option Uniservs on the WEAC board of directors The record is sketchy as to the manner in which the commit- tee negotiates with USU, and as to the manner in which overall labor relations policies and day to day labor relations are handled for the WEAC staff However, there is no evidence that the representatives of local option Uni- servs play any role in formulating noncontrac- tual labor relations policies or in the day to day labor relations of the WEAC staff We find, therefore, that the evidence relating to the control of labor relations is insufficient to sup port a finding of single-employer status Finally, the Regional Director determined that WEAC and the Uniservs also meet the fourth cri- terion of single employer status, that of common ownership Recognizing that these entities are non profit organizations, having no real owners or stockholders, he nevertheless reasoned that because employees of both WEAC and the Uniservs are ul timately responsible to the elected leadership and, through them, to the membership of the WEAC af- filiated locals, this common accountability is suffi- ciently akin to common ownership to satisfy this criterion We disagree First, in the circumstances of this case, the factor of common ownership is not really applicable be cause, as the Regional Director recognized, WEAC and the Uniservs have no owners Second we are not persuaded by the Regional Director's accountability rationale With respect to the second point, we note that each Uniserv has it own mem bership, separate from all other Uniservs, and al though Uniserv members are, by virtue of the UTP's unified membership structure (see fn 5, supra), members of WEAC as well, their WEAC membership is more associational than participa tory Further, WEAC's membership base includes not only every Uniserv member, but also those not participating in that system, e g , the Eau Claire and Monona Grove local association members In any event, the absence of common managerial con- trol of the different entities involved outweighs any attribute of common membership in WEAC that the members of the Uniservs and the two non Uni serv associations share The local option Uniservs, for example, beside having individual structures and operations, often take different stands on issues and pursue different, sometimes conflicting, inter ests than that of WEAC and other Uniservs Thus, common control is missing from the relationship between the local option Uniservs and WEAC and, with it, the so-called accountability to the member WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSN ship that the Regional Director deemed equivalent to ownership Accordingly, common ownership as a criterion for determining single employer status has not been established under the Regional Direc- tor's "accountability" rationale, nor is there any of the usual ownership indicia Based on the foregoing, we conclude, contrary to the Regional Director , that WEAC and the Uni servs do not meet the standard for single employer status Although there are clearly strong instances of cooperation and mutual assistance , derived from their common goals, these factors do not together establish the absence of an arm's-length relationship necessary for a finding of single employer Joint Employer The Regional Director concluded, in the alterna tive, that should there be insufficient common con- trol over labor relations to establish single employ er status, WEAC and the Uniservs are nonetheless joint employers He reached this conclusion, how- ever, without analyzing the facts under the stand and for joint employer The test for determining whether multiple enti ties are a joint employer is whether they together share or codetermine "those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment" as shown by the purported joint employers ' meaning fully affecting "matters relating to the employment relationship such as hiring , firing, discipline, super- vision, and direction " TLI Inc, 271 NLRB 798 at 798 (1984), enfd mem 772 F 2d 896 (3d Cir 1985), NLRB v Browning-Ferris Industries, 691 F 2d 1117 (3d Cir 1982) The four factors indicative of single employer are not determinative of joint employer status and the absence of an arm 's length relation- ship is not descriptive of joint employers Instead, joint employers are separate entities who share in the control of the employees' worklife Based on the evidence, we find that no joint em- ployer relationship exists Although there is no need to recount in detail those matters over which Uniservs, individually and without WEAC partici- 715 pation, exercise exclusive control, it is important to note again that local option Uniservs alone decide whom to hire and fire, when and how to discipline, the manner in which supervision will operate, how to evaluate employees and resolve their grievances, the manner in which their work will be directed and, together with the employee, negotiate an agreement covering the terms and conditions of his or her employment Consequently, there is simply no room for codetermination with WEAC because the Uniservs control all these areas of the employ ment relationship In addition, it is important to recognize that the 27 individual local option Uniservs are completely separate from one another as well as from WEAC They are geographically disparate, individually managed and governed, have separate work forces (except in those cases, described above, in which Uniservs sharing office space engage in employee sharing arrangements), and operate autonomously on all matters relating to the direction of employ- ees Accordingly, we conclude that the Uniservs are not joint employers of Uniserv employees In conclusion, we find that the evidence con- cerning the relationship between WEAC and the Uniservs is neither that of single employer nor joint employer Accordingly, there is no basis for con- ducting elections among two separate groupings of employees working at the local option Uniservs to decide whether they wish to be represented in units currently consisting of employees of WEAC and the state option Uniservs, and we shall there- fore dismiss the petitions in Cases 30-RC-4162 and 30-RC-4163 34 ORDER The petitions in Cases 30-RC-4162 and 30-RC- 4163 are dismissed and the Regional Directors Di- rection of Election in Voting Group C is vacated 34 Because of the dismissal of these petitions we shall vacate the Re gional Directors Direction of Election with respect to the attorneys in cluded in the existing professional unit of WEAC and state option Um servs (Voting Group C)