National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
63 L. Ed. 2d 115, 444 U.S. 672, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 25 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
University faculty who exercise substantial and pervasive authority in operating the institution, including making effective decisions on academic and personnel matters, are considered managerial employees and are therefore excluded from the collective bargaining protections of the National Labor Relations Act.
Facts:
- Yeshiva University is a private university in New York City with a central administration and multiple, substantially autonomous schools.
- The full-time faculty at each school effectively determine the school's curriculum, grading system, admission standards, academic calendars, and course schedules.
- Faculty at each school make recommendations for faculty hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, termination, and promotion.
- The university's central administration implements the overwhelming majority of the faculty's recommendations on these academic and personnel matters.
- In some instances, faculty have also made decisions regarding student absence policies, tuition and enrollment levels, and the physical location of a school.
- The Yeshiva University Faculty Association (Union) sought to represent the full-time faculty for collective bargaining purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- The Yeshiva University Faculty Association (Union) filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB granted the petition and directed a representation election.
- The Union won the election and was certified by the NLRB as the exclusive bargaining agent for the faculty.
- Yeshiva University refused to bargain, claiming the faculty were managerial employees.
- The NLRB found that the University had committed an unfair labor practice and ordered it to bargain with the Union.
- The NLRB filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking enforcement of its bargaining order.
- The Court of Appeals denied the NLRB's petition, concluding that the faculty were managerial employees.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the full-time faculty of Yeshiva University 'managerial employees' and thus excluded from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes. The full-time faculty of Yeshiva University are managerial employees excluded from the Act's coverage because their extensive role in university governance aligns them with management. The controlling consideration is that the faculty exercise authority which, in any other context, would unquestionably be considered managerial. They effectively determine the university's 'product' (curriculum), the 'terms upon which it will be offered' (grading and matriculation standards), and the 'customers who will be served' (admissions). The Court rejected the National Labor Relations Board's argument that these decisions are merely the exercise of 'independent professional judgment' rather than actions taken in the interest of the employer. It found that the faculty's professional interests in academic excellence are inextricably aligned with the university's institutional goals, making it impossible to separate them. This alignment creates the potential for the divided loyalty that the managerial exclusion was designed to prevent.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. The faculty are not managerial employees because their decision-making authority stems from their collective expertise as professionals and is exercised in their own professional interest, not as representatives of management. The dissent argued for deference to the Board's expertise in adapting the National Labor Relations Act to the unique academic environment. It contended that the majority's view relies on an outdated, idealized model of collegiality and fails to recognize the modern university's hierarchical structure, where ultimate authority rests with the administration. The faculty are not 'accountable' to the administration for their governance recommendations in the same way a manager is. Furthermore, the interests of faculty and administration often diverge, particularly on economic issues like salaries and on matters of university budget, demonstrating that they are not a single, aligned entity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of the National Labor Relations Act's protections for faculty at private universities. By classifying faculty with substantial governance roles as 'managerial,' the Court made it more difficult for them to unionize. The ruling established a fact-intensive inquiry for future cases, requiring the National Labor Relations Board and courts to analyze the specific governance structure of each institution to determine the extent of faculty authority. This precedent forces a distinction between faculty who merely provide professional input and those who 'substantially and pervasively' operate the institution, blurring the line between professional and managerial employees in the academic context.
