Tulane University

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 4, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 329 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

TULANE UNIVERSITY 329 Tulane University and Service Employees ' Interna- tional Union , Local No. 275, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case 15-RC-4653 February 4, 1972 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer I. Harold Koretzky of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the hearing, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., for decision, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, the Em- ployer filed a brief with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the brief filed by the Employer, the Board finds: 1. Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, is a private, nonprofit institution of higher learning. It is governed by a self-perpetuating 17-member body known as the Administrators of the Tulane Educa- tional Fund, or the Board of Administrators. Tulane has some 3,400 academic and nonacademic employees. Its student population is 8,500 during the regular school term, with some 2,000 summer enrollees. The University's current budget reflects an income of $46,000,000, with expenses of like amount. Its income is derived primarily from student tuition and fees. Its investment portfolio of $45,000,000, consisting of stocks, bonds, mortgages, and commercial real estate, produces an annual income of $2,300,000. In this con- nection, Tulane receives $500,000 a year for lease of its stadium to the New Orleans Saints professional foot- ball team, although this is on a temporary basis. It owns the land on which the Roosevelt Hotel and the Shell Building are located and owns an off-campus facility called "Brennan's." The University also receives Fed- eral grants and contracts in the amount of $15,000,000 yearly, including $9,000,000 from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, $1,500,000 from the Department of Defense, and miscellaneous amounts from such agencies as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, and the National Science Foundation. The Uni- versity's out-of-state purchases of supplies and materi- als amount to $5,000,000 a year. The Employer contests the Board's assertion ofjuris- diction in this case. However, in light of the foregoing facts, it is clear that the economic operations of Tulane University have a substantial impact on interstate com- merce and that, by any reasonable standard which might be imposed, the Board is amply justified in exer- cising its jurisdiction in the instant proceeding. Tulane clearly meets the standards which the Board has estab- lished for institutions of higher learning.' Accordingly, we find that Tulane University is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of some 400 nonacademic wage employees, basically, "mainte- nance and cafeteria employees" at Tulane's main (up- town) campus in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Em- ployer, on the other hand, argues that the only appropriate unit is one universitywide in scope, encom- passing all nonacademic wage employees throughout the entire University , including those at the Medical Center, the Delta Regional Primate Research Center, and the F. Edward Hebert Research Center. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that it would go to an election in an overall unit encompassing employees at all four facilities if the Board found the initially re- quested unit to be inappropriate. There is no bargaining history for any of Tulane's nonacademic wage em- ployees. Tulane's main campus is located in the New Orleans uptown section and contains such facilities as the Schools of Arts and Sciences, Newcomb, Architecture, Engineering, Social Work, Business Administration, Law, etc., and employs about 400 nonacademic, wage employees. The Medical Center is located in the down- town business district, about 5 miles away from the main campus , and employs some 240 nonacademic, wage employees.2 The Delta Regional Primate Re- search Center is in Covington, Louisiana, some 40 miles north of the main campus, and employs 22 wage employees. The F. Edward Hebert Research Center, commonly called Riverside, is located in the New Or- leans suburb of Belle Chasse, about 15 miles south of Sec 103 1 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended Tulane has no teaching hospital of its own and , therefore, located its Medical Center adjacent to the State 's Chanty Hospital , which it uses for teaching purposes by agreement with the State 195 NLRB No. 62 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the main campus, and employs seven nonacademic wage employees. The wages, hours, and working conditions for all nonacademic wage employees of Tulane are developed by the Non-Academic Personnel Executive Commit- tee, which is located on the main campus. The account- ing office for the entire University is on the main cam- pus, as are the business records and the payroll office. All purchasing is accomplished through the chief pur- chasing agent on the main campus, although there is an assistant purchasing agent at the Medical Center. Budgeting is also accomplished centrally for the whole University. No single facility or department has the power or authority to pay debts or enter into contracts, such authority being possessed by the business manager on behalf of the Board of Administrators. All griev- ances are processed by the Non-Academic Personnel Executive Committee. There are some 72 classifications and subclassifica- tions of wage employees and they appear virtually throughout the entire University, regardless of geogra- phy, in 51 departments or subdivisions thereof. These employees are grouped according to the function they perform, such as food service workers, custodial work- ers, mechanics, and utilitymen, and they operate and are supervised within the department to which they are assigned. The largest department is the physical plant, which employs some 179 wage employees who work at all four University sites . These employees are super- vised by the director of the physical plant, who is located on the main campus. The food service depart- ment employs some 141 wage employees, 127 of whom work in the cafeteria and dining halls on the main campus, and 24 of whom work in the Medical Center cafeteria. While there is a manager of each food facility, these managers report directly to the assistant business manager of the University, who is on the main campus. The housing department employs some 75 wage em- ployees, and they are assigned to the main campus and Medical Center. However they are supervised by the director of housing, who is located on the main cam- pus. All job classifications and ranges and rates of pay for wage employees throughout the University are deter- mined by the Non-Academic Personnel Executive Committee, which publishes an "Hourly Staff Manual ," defining the policies and practices of the Uni- versity with respect to all wage employees. There are no differences in job skills and functions within each job classification. All employees are subject to the same central personnel policies, practices, processes, and ad- ministration. All fringe benefits, including basic hospi- talization, major medical benefits, group life insurance, and disability insurance, are uniform for all wage em- ployees. Nearly all wage employees punch a timeclock, all have the same payroll period and the same payday, and all are issued the same kind of paycheck , which is prepared in the payroll department on the main cam- pus. Nearly all of the University 's wage employees are required to wear uniforms which are identical through- out the University. The great majority of the wage employees who work at one of the University's four installations perform their duties at . that specific loca- tion . There are only occasional temporary transfers of employees from one facility to another. As we said in Cornell University,' in determining whether a particular group of employees constitutes an appropriate unit for bargaining where an employer op- erates a number of facilities , the Board considers such factors as prior bargaining history ; centralization of management , particularly in regard to labor relations; extent of employee interchange ; degree of interdepend- ence or autonomy of facilities ; differences or similarities in skills and functions of the employees ; and geograph- ical location of the facilities in relation to each other. There is considerable evidence in this case that the operations of Tulane 's four facilities are integrated and centralized and that a community of interests is shared by all of its wage employees . Thus, as indicated, the Non-Academic Personnel Executive Committee, which is located on the main campus , formulates wages , hours , and working conditions for wage em- ployees throughout the University . Hiring and promo- tion are determined through a central personnel office located at the main campus . The job titles of Tulane's wage employees are identical throughout the Univer- sity . The skills and functions within each of the various classifications of wage employees are identical, and all wage employees receive the same fringe benefits. Since the University' s wage employees are assigned, func- tionally, to one of the various departments, subject to centralized supervision from the main campus , there is little, if any , autonomy at the three facilities off the main campus , and there is no common supervision exercised by the first and second echelon supervisors among the various classifications of wage employees at any single facility. In view of the above circumstances , we find that a unit limited to wage employees at Tulane's main cam- pus is inappropriate. We find , rather, that an appropri- ate unit at Tulane must embrace wage employees at all of Tulane 's four facilities, and, in accordance with the Petitioner 's alternative unit position , we shall direct an election in such a unit.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. ' 183 NLRB No. 41 4 See Cornell University, supra TULANE UNIVERSITY All nonacademic wage employees , including maintenance and cafeteria employees , at Tulane University's main (uptown) campus, the Medical Center , the Delta Regional Primate Center, and the F . Edward Hebert Research Center , excluding all office clerical employees , professional em- ployees , guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election ',' omitted from publication.] MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting: Contrary to my colleagues , I do not believe that our decision in Cornell University' compels the conclusion that the appropriate unit in this case must include the wage employees at all of Tulane's four facilities. In my view , the record amply supports the exclusion of the Delta Regional Primate Research Center and the F. Edward Hebert Research Center located 40 and 15 miles , respectively , from the main New Orleans cam- ' As the unit found appropriate herein is more comprehensive than that defined in the petition , we shall instruct the Regional Director to determine the adequacy of the Petitioner 's showing of interest in the aforedescribed appropriate unit before proceeding with an election herein 6 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N.LR . B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U S 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi- nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. ' 183 NLRB No 41 331 pus. I would , however, include in the unit the wage employees at the Medical Center which is located in downtown New Orleans approximately 5 miles from the main campus. In addition to the lack of geographic proximity be- tween the two facilities located in the city of New Or- leans and the two research centers , there is a lack of interchange or transfer of employees between these facilities . Nor is there any showing that the four facili- ties recruit their respective wage employees from a common labor market . Presumably the employees em- ployed at the New Orleans facilities are recruited from the labor market in the immediate urban area. Apart from central administrative control of personnel poli- cies relating to wage employees which are formulated by the Non-Academic Personnel Executive Committee located on the main campus , there appears to be no basis for concluding that a unit of less than all four facilities is, in the circumstances of this case , inappro- priate. The Board has consistently held that a union need not petition for the optimum appropriate unit but only for an appropriate unit . Since the Union has indicated that it will proceed to an election in any unit found appropriate and since no other union seeks an overall unit of the four facilities , I would find appropriate a unit consisting of the main campus and the Medical Center . This finding I believe comports with our deci- sion in Cornell University, supra, where we specifically noted that "we are entering into a hitherto uncharted area." I interpret that statement to mean that we would weigh all the factors in each case arising in this new area and, consistent with prior decisions, arrive at unit determinations based on factors which would be con- sistent with our duty to define the appropriateness of units.