Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Representation Proceedings 51set up some union meetings, the majority found that such evidencethat arguably establishes limited actual or apparent authoritywas not a "manifestation" to employees broad enough torender Wentworth a general agent.With regard to a possible implied "manifestation" of authority,the majority found Wentworth clearly was a leading, if not theleading, union supporter and his actions reflected that status. Itemphasized, however, that the Board has never held that suchstatus alone is sufficient to establish general union agency. Moreover,although noting that the union must have known of someof Wentworth's actions, the majority concluded that the recorddoes not establish to what degree the union was aware of the actionsby Wentworth that were not expressly authorized, thuseliminating the possibility of finding that the union implicitly createdapparent authorization of other conduct by ratification. Themajority also stressed that the union did not abdicate its role inthe campaign and, through the union organizer's conduct ofunion meetings and other activity, it was clear to employees thatthe union had its own spokesman separate and apart from unionactivists such as Wentworth.In dissent, Member Johansen concluded that the evidence,when considered in toto, demonstrated that Wentworth was theunion's agent. He found, based in part on the testimony of severalemployees, that the record clearly supported a finding thatWentworth was the principal leader of the organizing drive atthe employer's facility. Because the petitioner, under these circumstances,did not disassociate itself from nor repudiate Wentworth'sexercise of apparent authority, Member Johansen wouldhave found that certain threatening _statements made by Wentworthto another employee constituted objectionable conductwarranting a new election.E. Unit ClarificationIn University of Dubuque," the Board clarified a bargainingunit to exclude all full- and part-time faculty members as managerialemployees. The Board found it appropriate to entertain theUniversity's petition to clarify despite the lack of evidence of anychange in the duties of the faculty since the unit's formation, anddespite the Board's general policy against entertaining unit clarificationsduring the term of a collective-bargaining agreementthat contains a clear recognition clause.The Board found it appropriate to entertain the University'spetition for two reasons. First, it noted that in light of the SupremeCourt's decision in NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 28 theBoard has found it appropriate to clarify a unit composed of facultyto exclude those who are managerial and, therefore, not22 289 NLRB No. 34 (Chairman Stephens and Member Babson; Member Johansen dissenting).28 444 U.S. 672 (1980).