RESPONDENT: Yeshiva University
LOCATION: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
DOCKET NO.: 78-857
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CITATION: 444 US 672 (1980)
ARGUED: Oct 10, 1979
DECIDED: Feb 20, 1980
Marvin E. Frankel - on behalf of the Respondent
Norton J. Come - on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 78-857
Ronald H. Shechtman - on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 78-997
Facts of the case
Media for National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva UniversityAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 10, 1979 in National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - February 20, 1980 in National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
Warren E. Burger:
The judgment and opinion of the Court in National Labor Relations Board against Yeshiva University and the related case, a cross-petition will be announced by Mr. Justice Powell.
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.:
The question in this case is whether the National Labor Relations Act requires Yeshiva University to bargain collectively with school and faculty members.
The dispute arose when the university refused to bargain with a union representing the full-time faculty.
The university contended that faculty members are supervisory and managerial employees and therefore are excluded from the Act.
The National Labor Relations Board disagreed.
But the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to enforce the Board's order.
Concluding that Yeshiva faculty substantially and pervasively operates the enterprise, the Court of Appeals determined that full-time faculty members were managerial employees.
We agree with this conclusion.
The record demonstrates that the faculty exercise its authority which is unquestionably managerial.
They effectively determined for example what courses will be offered, when they will be scheduled, to whom they will be taught, and who will be graduated.
They also make recommendation usually accepted as to faculty hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, termination, and promotion.
Faculty members undoubtedly also exercise professional judgment in making these decisions.
It is clear however that the decisions reflect the interest and policy of the university as well as the professional interest of the faculty.
Nor can we defer in this case to the expertise of the Board as it made no specific findings of fact and arrived at a conclusion we think is inconsistent with the policy of the Act.
Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Justice Brennan has filed a dissenting opinion joined by Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Blackmun.
Warren E. Burger:
Thank you Mr. Justice Powell.