Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

28 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardjurisdiction presented a substantial likelihood of infringement onfirst amendment rights particularly because the Bishop had theauthority to remove faculty members if their conduct was not inharmony with Catholic beliefs, and faculty were prohibited fromknowingly inculcating ideas contrary to the position of thechurch.Chairman Dotson, dissenting, believed that the administrativecontrol exercised by the church, the financial dependence on thechurch, the church sponsorship, and the encouragement of Christianvalues through mandatory religious study and the overall atmosphererequired a finding that the college was church-controlledand, therefore, he would have declined to assert jurisdiction.The Board then examined the college's decision-making processesand concluded that the faculty members at LivingstoneCollege played a major and effective role in formulating and effectuatingpolicies affecting primary areas identified as characteristicof managerial employees in YeshivaThe majority found that by virtue of their presence on the curriculumcatalog committee and other committees and the facultywidevote necessary before implementing any recommendationsfrom these committees, the faculty members exercised substantialauthority with respect to curriculum, degree requirements,graduation requirements, matriculation standards, andscholarship recipients, and they had established major fields ofstudy, modified course requirements, added and deleted courseofferings, and set course content, course descriptions, and courseschedules. In particular, the majority noted that most of the recommendationsmade by the committees and approved by the facultywere implemented without prior approval from the administration,and there was no evidence that the administration hadever countermanded faculty decisions.On the other hand, the majority found that only departmentand division heads had any authority in nonacademic matterssuch as hiring, firing, promotion, and salary increases, and thatthe faculty had virtually no input into the budget process, tenuredecisions, and setting of tuition. Nevertheless, the majority statedthat "we do not believe that lack of participation in these mattersprecludes a finding that the faculty are managerial employees."The majority noted that the Supreme Court in YESHIVA did notrely primarily on faculty authority in matters of hiring, firing,and related areas in finding the faculty to be managerial employees.Member Johansen, dissenting in part, concluded that the majorityerred in according only limited significance to the faculty'sauthority in nonacademic matters, as the Board analyzes facultycontrol in both academic and nonacademic areas in determiningmanagerial status. Member Johansen, guided by Yeshiva, wouldhave found the faculty to be nonmanagerial based on their lack