University of Miami

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 634 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
University of Miami and University of Miami Chapter,
American Association of University Professors, Peti-
tioner
University of Miami and Law Facility Association, Pe-
titioner.1 Cases 12-RC-4520 and 12-RC-4530
September 27, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed, a consolidated hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Anthony J. Di Salvo. Thereafter, the Regional
Director for Region 12 transferred this proceeding to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision, pur-
suant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Re-
gulations, Series 8 , as amended. The Employer and
each of the Petitioners then filed briefs in support of
their respective positons.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board finds:
1. The University of Miami is a private, nonprofit
institution of higher education and scientific research
with offices and educational facilities located at Coral
Gables and Miami, Florida. During the past year the
University derived gross revenues in excess of $1 mil-
lion exclusive of contributions which, because of limi-
tations by the grantor, are not available for use for
operating expenses. During the same period, the Uni-
versity purchased materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from sources located outside the
State of Florida. Based on the foregoing stipulated
facts, we find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The Employer contends that the AAUP and the
LFA are not labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act. However, it is clear from the record that
it is the purpose of both these organizations to bargain
1 The Petitioners are hereinafter referred to, respectively , as the AAUP and
the LFA.
collectively with the Employer and that they each
meet the definition of "labor organization" set forth
in Section 2(5) of the Act. See University of San Fran-
cisco, 207 NLRB 12 (1973), and Manhattan College,
195 NLRB 65 (1972). Accordingly, we find that the
Petitioners are labor organizations seeking to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. AAUP, the Petitioner in Case 12-RC-4520,
seeks to represent a unit of all full-time faculty, in-
cluding professional librarians, employed by the Uni-
versity, but excluding the faculties of the school of
law, the school of medicine, and the Rosenstiel school
of marine and atmospheric science .2 LFA, the Peti-
tioner in Case 12-RC-4530, seeks to represent a sepa-
rate unit of all full-time law school faculty, including
professional librarians.
The Employer initially contends that no faculty
bargaining unit can be appropriate because all faculty
members-by virtue of their group participation in
faculty governance-are supervisory and managerial
individuals and are, thereby, not employees within the
meaning of the Act. In making this contention, the
Employer requests that the Board either reconsider its
previous decisions on this issue 3 or, in any event,
reach a contrary result herein on the ground that this
particular faculty has authority which is different
from, and more extensive than, the authority vested in
the faculties which were the subjects of the earlier
cases.
We find from our examination of the record, how-
ever, that the role and authority of the faculty herein
with respect to hiring, promotion, salary increases, the
granting of tenure, and other areas of governance are
not significantly different from what they were in the
cited cases,4 wherein the same arguments were reject-
ed. At the University of Miami, faculty participation
in collegial decision-making is on a collective rather
than individual basis, it is exercised in the faculty's
own interest rather than "in the interest of the em-
ployer." 5 and final authority rests with the board of
trustees. As in the earlier decisions, we find that the
faculty members are professional employees under
the Act who are entitled to vote for or against collec-
tive-bargaining representation.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the Rosenstiel school.
3 Adelphi University, 195 NLRB 639 (1972); Fordham University, 193 NLRB
134 (1971); and C. W. Post Center of Long Island University, 189 NLRB 904
(1971).
4 See fn . 3, supra. See also New York University, 205 NLRB 4 (1973), and
Manhattan College, supra.
5 Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
213 NLRB No. 64
Scope of Unit
UNIVERSITY 9F MIAMI 635
As noted above, AAUP seeks a unit of all full-time
faculty, excepting the law, medical, and Rosenstiel
schools. The latter two schools are situated, re-
spectively, 10 and 7 miles distant from the main cam-
pus in Coral Gables. LFA agrees with the AAUP's
position and contends that the law school faculty
should be separately represented. The Employer as-
serts that, should the Board rule against its contention
that faculty members are not "employees" within the
Act's definition, then the only appropriate unit is one
universitywide in scope, including all graduate profes-
sional schools on all campuses.'
The school of law: We have held in prior cases that
a universitywide unit excluding the law school facul-
ty and a separate unit limited to the law school facul-
ty $ would both be appropriate. Essentially the same
factors are present herein as were extant in the earlier
cases. The University of Miami School of Law: (1) has
exclusive occupancy of five buildings which are physi-
cally separate from other academic buildings on the
Coral Gables campus; (2) complies with stringent ac-
creditation and professional standards established by
the American Bar Association and the Association of
American Law Schools, and the accreditation main-
tained by adherence to such standards is vital to the
school's continued existence, as the graduates of
unaccredited law schools are not permitted to take
bar examinations in Florida and most other States; (3)
maintains an academic calendar somewhat different
from that used by the remainder of the University,
which difference is necessitated by the minimum
class-hour standards required for its accreditation; (4)
has an average faculty salary significantly higher than
that of other schools on the main campus; (5) awards
promotion and tenure to its faculty members in a
substantially shorter time than is the practice in the
other schools and, consequently, has a much higher
percentage of tenured professors on its staff; and (6)
has a faculty and dean who appear to possess a signif i-
cant degree of operational independence on a day-to-
day basis from the general university community.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the law
school faculty constitutes an identifiable group of em-
ployees whose separate community of interest is not
irrevocably submerged in the broader community of
interest which they share with other faculty members.
' The three schools which AAUP would exclude are the only ones in the
University having separate faculties principally engaged in professional edu-
cation and the granting of postbaccalaureate degrees . The graduate school,
located on the Coral Gables campus, has no independent faculty of its own.
7 Fordham University, 193 NLRB 134; Syracuse University, 204 NLRB 641
(1973), and New York University, 205 NLRB 4 (1973)
8
The Catholic University of America, 201 NLRB 929 (1973); and University
of San Francisco, 207 NLRB 12 (1973)
And the operation of the law school is not so highly
integrated with the remainder of the University as to
compel a finding that only an overall unit would be
appropriate . Therefore , and as no labor organization
is seeking to include the law school in a broader unit,
we find that an overall faculty unit , excluding the law
school , and a separate unit limited to the law faculty
are both appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
The school of medicine: In Syracuse University, su-
pra, and Fordham University, supra, we observed that
many of the factors which led the Board to conclude
that law schools may appropriately be excluded from
overall faculty units are equally applicable to other
professional schools .' Our examination of those fac-
tors with respect to the medical school herein convinc-
es us that the interests of the medical faculty are
sufficiently divergent from those of the university fa-
culty at Coral Gables 10 to justify their exclusion from
AAUP's requested unit.
The University's medical school exclusively occu-
pies a number of educational , research , and adminis-
trative buildings located within the medical center
complex in northwest Miami . In addition to the medi-
cal school , that complex also includes Jackson Memo-
nal Hospital and Veterans Administration
Hospital-the principal teaching hospitals for the
medical school-the University of Miami hospitals
and clinics , a child developmental center , and an eye
institute.
The medical school follows established university
policies and guidelines , it has representation in the
faculty senate , and its faculty members receive all the
basic fringe benefits given to faculty throughout the
University ." Further, there has been a limited degree
of faculty interchange , with 20 to 25 faculty members,
out of a complement of 577 medical school profes-
sionals , having either given courses on the Coral Ga-
bles campus or participated to some extent in
seminars given there by others . Medical faculty mem-
bers , when on hospital duty , also participate in the
training of nursing students , including both those en-
rolled in the University 's nursing school and those
enrolled in the nursing program of another institution.
On the other hand , the medical school's 577 full-
time faculty members are responsible for the educa-
tion of 640 students , while , in contrast, the Coral Ga-
bles campus has approximately 520 full -time faculty
members serving the needs of a student body in excess
9 See also Fairleigh Dickinson University, 205 NLRB 673 (1973)
10 Hereinafter references to the Coral Gables campus or faculty are intend-
ed to be exclusive of the law school and its faculty
11 However, over 250 members of the medical school faculty receive health
insurance and retirement benefits superior to what is given faculty elsewhere
in the University, as a product of their participation in a school -sponsored
professional income plan.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of 14,000. Further, more than 300 among the medical
faculty are practicing physicians who devote a sub-
stantial portion of their time to patient care, some of
which is performed in conjunction with their teaching
duties.
The medical school operates in accordance with an
academic calendar very different from that followed
by the rest of the university community and, while
most university faculty are employed on 9-month
contracts, most of those in the medical school work on
a 12-month basis. Indeed, the regular medical school
academic program operates around the year, as op-
posed to the more traditional two semesters plus sum-
mer session followed by the University in general.
Further, the average salary of the medical school fa-
culty is substantially above that received by personnel
in any of the Coral Gables schools and the highest
medical school salaries are almost double the highest
salaries paid to members of other faculties. Moreover,
because of the great volume of its research work, the
medical school receives over $15 million per year in
research and education grants from governmental
agencies and private foundations, an amount almost
eight times greater than that obtained by any school
on the Coral Gables campus and more than twice the
total of all those schools combined. As the joint result
of these grants and the large amount of income gener-
ated by patient-care activities, the great preponder-
ance of financial support for the salaries of the
medical faculty is derived from nonuniversity sources.
The same is equally true respecting the school's other
operating expenses.
In view of the foregoing factors, the medical
school's geographic separation from the Coral Gables
campus, the absence of bargaining history, and the
fact that no labor organization seeks to include the
medical faculty in a broader unit, we conclude that
the medical school's exclusion from the AAUP's re-
quested faculty unit does not render the latter inap-
propriate.
The Rosenstiel school: The Rosenstiel school is one
of the largest marine educational and research estab-
lishments in the world. It offers courses and conducts
extensive research in the areas of physical and chemi-
cal oceanography, atmospheric science, marine geol-
ogy and geophysics, marine biological science,
fisheries and applied estuarine ecology, and ocean
engineering.
The school is situated on its own 7-acre waterfront
campus on Virginia Key where it has numerous build-
ings and other facilities devoted to research and edu-
cation in its chosen fields of specialization. 12 It also
12 Additionally , off-campus research stations are maintained on nearby
Fisher Island, in the Everglades National Park , at the computer center on the
Coral Gables campus, and on Turkey Point and Pigeon Key-respectively,
maintains a small fleet of oceanographic research ves-
sels.
With a total student enrollment of only 125, Rosen-
stiel nevertheless maintains a teaching and research
staff that includes 84 regular faculty members, 21 re-
search scientists, and 101 research associates and as-
sistants." It appears that this ratio of staff to students,
radically different from that which prevails on the
Coral Gables campus, is the product of Rosenstiel's
heavy commitment to research work. To support this
activity, the school is largely dependent on nonuniver-
sity funding provided by governmental agencies and
private organizations. Annual funding from such
sources approximates $7 million, an amount which
exceeds the total of such funds received by the entire
Coral Gables faculty and is 3-1/2 times greater than
the grants obtained by the most research-oriented of
the main campus schools. Another result of
Rosenstiel's emphasis on research is the employment
of most of its faculty members on 12-month contracts,
in contrast to the 9-month contracts given to the ma-
jority of academic personnel on the Coral Gables
campus.
In the area of student education, Rosenstiel is prin-
cipally a graduate professional institution, with only
3 of its more than 100 courses being given at the
undergraduate level. There is a limited amount of
faculty interchange, to the extent that 8 to 10 Rosen-
stiel faculty members have teaching responsibilities
on the Coral Gables campus. Also, 5 to 10 staff mem-
bers (faculty and/or research personnel) perform
work at the school's facility in the Coral Gables com-
puter center.
Although the Rosenstiel school complies with all
general universitywide policies and procedures, and
officials of the graduate school have a degree of re-
sponsibility respecting the education of Rosenstiel
students,14 there is no showing of any day-to-day di-
rection of Rosenstiel's operations and affairs by facul-
ty or administration based in Coral Gables.
In view of the circumstances set forth above, the
geographic separation of the Rosenstiel school from
the rest of the University, and the fact that no labor
30 and 100 miles from Virginia Key.
13 In agreement with the Employer's contentions , we find, infra, that re-
search scientists are professional employees who have a community of inter-
est with faculty members which is sufficient to require their inclusion in any
unit that encompasses faculty members employed in the same school or
college. The status of research associates is not resolved herein because the
limited nature of the record evidence in this regard does not allow for a
determination as to their professional status . The research assistants perform
work analogous to that of laboratory technicians and are not considered to
be professional employees . No party seeks their inclusion.
It appears that the graduate school sets certain basic residence, grade,
and examination standards which are generally applicable to the graduate
students in all of the University's schools . However, the separate school and
department faculties maintain primary responsibility for curriculum, course
requirements, and the establishment of criteria for the granting of graduate
degrees.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
organization seeks to represent both the Rosenstiel
and Coral Gables faculties in a single unit, we con-
clude that a faculty unit excluding the Rosenstiel
school is appropriate.
In accordance with our foregoing conclusions re-
garding the scope of the requested units, we find the
following units to be appropriate herein for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining: (1) an overall faculty
unit, exclusive of the faculties of the graduate profes-
sional schools, i.e., the school of law, the school of
medicine, and the Rosenstiel school; and (2) a sepa-
rate unit limited to the faculty of the school of law.
Unit Composition
There remain for consideration both disputes and
agreements between the parties concerning the inclu-
sion or exclusion of the following specific categories
of employees:
Part-time faculty: The Petitioner would exclude,
while the Employer would include, part-time faculty
members. For the reasons set forth in our decisions in
New York University, supra, and University of San
Francisco, supra, we agree with the Petitioners' posi-
tion and shall exclude part-time faculty from both of
the bargaining units found appropriate herein."
Department chairmen: AAUP and the Employer
agree that department chairmen should be included,16
the former asserting that they are not supervisors at
all and the latter contending that the only supervisory
authority they possess is the shared, collegial authori-
ty they have in common with all other faculty mem-
bers.
The department chairmen are appointed by the
dean of their school or college, after consultation with
a committee of the departmental faculty concerned-
whose recommendation is usually, although not al-
ways, followed. At least once every 4 years, faculty
members are entitled to vote, anonymously, on
whether they desire to replace or retain their chair-
man. In addition, such vote may be held at any earlier
time upon request to the dean or the faculty senate
council.
The chairmen have regular faculty appointments,
they teach classes, and, as some are not full profes-
sors, they may have a faculty rank below that of other
department members. It appears from the record that
they do not receive any extra pay or stipend as chair-
men, but they do have their teaching obligations
somewhat reduced in many classes.
With respect to decisions on tenure and promotion,
15 For the reasons expressed in his dissent in New York University, supra,
Chairman Miller would include the part- time faculty in both units.
16 LFA took no position on this issue as the school of law has no depart-
ment chairmen.
637
separate recommendations from the chairman and
the department faculty are forwarded up the chain of
command-first to the dean of the school, and then
on to the dean of faculties, the president, and, finally,
to the board of trustees, where ultimate authority in
such matters rests. In most cases, the faculty and
chairmen are in agreement, but, when they differ, the
higher academic officials give greater weight to a
strong faculty recommendation than to a contrary
recommendation by their department chairman. Both
chairmen and other faculty members participate in
the recruitment and interviewing of prospective new
appointees and, after consultation between the chair-
man and faculty, the chairman makes a recommenda-
tion to the dean that is in conformity with that faculty
consultation. The recommendation is then further
processed up through the administrative hierarchy.
Other duties of the chairmen include presiding at
department meetings and consulting and coordinat-
ing with faculty members on the development of class
schedules, registration, the timing of examinations,
the keeping of faculty and student records, and the
processing of grades."
In view of the foregoing, and in agreement with the
parties, we find that department chairmen are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act and shall
include them in the AAUP's requested unit.'8
Deans: Petitioners would exclude the deans as su-
pervisors, while the Employer would include them.
Deans are appointed by the University's president
and receive substantial salary increases upon appoint-
ment to their posts. Under the university personnel
classification system, they are appointed and paid in
the administrative category, while faculty members,
including department chairmen, are in the faculty ca-
tegory.
The deans are the chief administrative officers of
their respective schools and colleges and, as such, are
responsible for the development and distribution of
school and college budgets, including faculty salaries.
They consult with their department chairmen con-
cerning the financial needs of the departments and
take those consultations into consideration when
making budgetary requests to the University. Howev-
17 We note that when , 2 years ago, a university task force proposed a
regulation which would have required a two-thirds faculty vote to override
the decision of a department chairman , the faculty protested that adoption
of such a rule would change a chairman's status from that of "chairman of
a group" to "head of a department." Subsequently, the task force's proposal
was dropped.
19 See Fordham University supra . For the reasons stated in his dissent in
Fordham University, Member Kennedy would exclude the department chair.
men as supervisors within the meaning of the Act. In this case , he particularly
relies upon the fact that a chairman appears to have principal authority for
the nomination of new faculty appointments not involving the immediate
award of tenure . Although his nominations in this area are made after, and
in accord with, consultation with his faculty, he retains the final responsibil-
ity and the department faculty makes no separate recommendation of its own
to the higher administrative officials.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
er, once the University makes its lump sum allocation
to a school or college, the dean has final authority
over its distribution among the departments. He has
the option of having further discussions with his
chairmen and an individual chairman can plead his
department's case, but the final financial authority
rests with the dean.
While deans appoint department chairmen after
consultation with the departmental faculty and usual-
ly follow faculty recommendations, they retain the
authority to reject such recommendations if they de-
cide that a particular department is weak and in need
of a leader stronger than the one proposed. In fact, the
record indicates that some deans even have the au-
thority to prevent a department faculty from conven-
ing for the purpose of making such a
recommendation.
The above facts establish to our satisfaction that
deans are supervisors within the meaning of the Act
and we shall exclude them from both of the units
found appropriate herein.
Associate and assistant deans: Petitioners would ex-
clude the associate and assistant deans as administra-
tors, while the Employer would include those among
them who teach. It does not appear from the record
that they are ever delegated the supervisory authority
possessed by the deans under whom they serve and,
accordingly, we find that they are not supervisors.
The associate deans almost all hold tenured faculty
appointments, are paid in the faculty classification,
and fulfill teaching responsibilities, in the areas of
their professional qualifications, within an academic
department with which they are affiliated. On the
other hand, most assistant deans do not have faculty
status, do not teach, and are primarily high-level cleri-
cal coordinators. However, there is one associate dean
who does not teach and has no faculty affiliation and,
conversely, there is, at least, one assistant dean who
is a fully tenured faculty member with substantial
academic responsibilities in a department with which
she is permanently affiliated.
Accordingly, we shall include in the bargaining
units herein only those associate and assistant deans
who hold faculty appointments and regularly teach or
engage in equivalent academic activities in a depart-
ment with which they are permanently affiliated.
Those who do not meet these qualifications shall be
excluded as they have no substantial community of
interest with the faculty.
Nontenure-earning faculty positions: LFA seeks to
limit the law school unit to faculty occupying tenured
or tenure-producing positions, but the Employer
would include-in all units-all faculty members, re-
gardless of whether they hold tenured, tenure-produc-
ing, or nontenure-producing appointments. While
AAUP makes no specific contention on this issue, the
unlimited language used in describing its requested
unit-"all full-time faculty"-indicates that it may
share the Employer's view.
As set forth in the faculty manual, the University
has three types of faculty appointments-regular,
term, and indefinite.19 Full-time faculty in the latter
two categories do not have, and cannot normally
earn , tenure, but-except for the award of tenure-
are otherwise entitled to most, if not all, of the prerog-
atives and fringe benefits possessed by faculty mem-
bers holding regular appointments, have equal
academic qualifications, and teach classes or perform
research work of equal stature. Further, they general-
ly participate in the affairs and deliberations of their
respective academic departments, and, in the
University's bulletins, their names are listed under the
heading of "faculty," together with the names of fa-
culty members holding regular appointments. We
conclude from the record that they are professional
employees who have a close community of interest
with their fellow faculty members holding tenured or
tenure-earning positions. Accordingly, we shall in-
clude them in both bargaining units.
Research personnel: The Employer would include
research personnel holding the titles of research scien-
tist, program specialist, research associate, and train-
ing associate, while AAUP takes no specific position
on this issue 20
Research scientists and program specialists have
major responsibility for the conduct, planning, and
evaluation of research and training programs. In con-
nection therewith, they guide, assist, and review the
work of students. On occasion, they also teach classes.
They hold advanced academic degrees, are employed
on an annual salary and contract, and-as set forth
in the faculty manual-they "have equivalent stature
with University faculty and share all faculty preroga-
tives with the exception of tenure and participation in
faculty government." 21 We conclude that the research
scientists and program specialists are professional em-
19 Regular appointments are all to tenured or tenure -producing positions,
with employment being probationary until such time as tenure is granted.
Term appointments are made for a specific period of time. Indefinite ap-
pointments continue from year to year until terminated by either the faculty
member or the University. Faculty in both the latter categories are given
annual appointments and are paid annual salaries.
30 It appears from the record that no personnel in these categories are
employed at the law school and , consequently, this discussion is not applica-
ble to the law faculty unit.
2! The principal factor which distinguishes research scientists and program
specialists from faculty members with indefinite appointments is that the
formers' salary support is usually derived from nonuniversity sources; i.e.,
research and training grants from governmental and private organizations.
In any event, it is clear from the record that , regardless of the underlying
source of funds, the University maintains substantial control over the
amount of compensation paid, and full faculty fringe benefits apply to the
research personnel.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
ployees who have a close community with the faculty
and shall include them in the AAUP's requested unit.
Research associates and training associates per-
form work similar to, and in many cases along with,
research scientists and program specialists, but it ap-
parently is work involving a lesser degree of responsi-
bility. Generally, they do not possess advanced
academic degrees and further, unlike the scientists
and specialists, their names are not listed in the
University's principal bulletins. Because the record
evidence pertaining to their status is not sufficient to
allow for a determination as to whether they are pro-
fessional employees within the meaning of the Act, we
shall permit them to vote subject to challenge.
Athletic coaches: AAUP would exclude from its re-
quested unit the University's staff of approximately
15 athletic coaches. The Employer argues for their
inclusion. These coaches have no affiliation with the
University's physical education department and it ap-
pears that their sole function is the coaching of stu-
dents who participate in intercollegiate sports.22
These coaches are not eligible for tenure or partici-
pation in faculty government, but it appears that they
do receive fringe benefits equal to that of the faculty.
They are neither appointed nor paid in the faculty
categories of the University's personnel classification
system. There is no record evidence as to the range of
salaries they receive or as to how their salaries are
arrived at. No reference to the coaches or their status
appears in the faculty manual.
All other employees included in the requested unit
work under the aegis and budget of the University's
academic affairs division and are subject to the au-
thority of the dean of students and vice president for
academic affairs, but the coaches work under the ae-
gis of the president's division and are paid from the
budget of the office of the president. Further, they
serve at the pleasure of the president and are subject
to termination at any time their services are found
wanting. From the record, it does not appear that they
are subject to any of the personnel review procedures
applicable to all other employees in the unit.
While the University's faculty members, including
the research scientists and program specialists, all
have advanced academic degrees which are necessary
for the performance of their duties, all but a few of the
coaches hold only bachelor's degrees and there is no
evidence to support a contention that advanced de-
grees are a necessary requirement for any level of
coaching.
22 The golf coach is also a full-time member of the faculty of the business
administration school The parties are in agreement that he should be includ-
ed in the unit , as should anyone similarly situated- i e., coaches holding
full-time faculty membership in an academic department or school
639
From the foregoing, we conclude that the coaches
do not share a community of interest with the
University's faculty and research personnel sufficient
to warrant their inclusion in the unit. Further, the
evidence in the record is not adequate to establish
their status as professional employees within the
meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. Accordingly,
they are excluded.23
Guidance center faculty and librarians: AAUP would
include in its requested unit all full-time faculty mem-
bers within the University's guidance center and all
professional librarians holding faculty rank. LFA
would include all professional law librarians in its law
faculty unit. The Employer is in agreement with Peti-
tioners on these issues and, accordingly, the employee
categories specified shall be included in the respective
units.
ROTC instructors and chaplains: The parties stipu-
lated that employees in these categories are not em-
ployees of the University and, therefore, should not be
considered part of any unit found appropriate. Ac-
cordingly, they are excluded.
For the reasons stated above, we find that the fol-
lowing units are appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Unit 1. All full-time members of the faculty at the
University of Miami, including members of the
guidance center faculty, professional librarians
holding faculty rank, research scientists , program
specialists, department chairmen, and associate
and assistant deans who regularly engage in the
teaching function; but excluding members of the
faculties of the School of Law, the School of
Medicine, and the Rosenstiel School of Marine
and Atmospheric Science, part-time faculty
members, deans, associate and assistant deans
who do not regularly engage in the teaching func-
tion, athletic coaches, ROTC instructors, chap-
lains , officers of administration, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Unit 2. All full-time members of the faculty at the
University of Miami School of Law, including
professional law librarians, and associate assis-
tant deans who regularly teach at the law school;
but excluding part-time faculty members, the
dean of the law school, associate and assistant
deans who do not regularly teach at the law
school, officers of administration, guards, watch-
menLand supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
23 See Point Park College, 209 NLRB 1064 (1974), cf Manhattan College,
supra