1. State the issue before the Supreme Court.
2. What was the Court’s decision on the issue?
3. Identify the faculty powers and functions that the Court majority deemed “managerial decisions.”
4. What was the dissent’s view of the Court’s perception of the status of the Yeshiva faculty?

[Yeshiva University is a private university that conducts a broad range of arts and sciences programs at its five undergraduate and eight graduate schools in New York City. On October 30, 1974, the Yeshiva University Faculty Association (Union) filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board (Board). The union sought certification as bargaining agent for the full-time faculty members at 10 of the 13 schools. The university opposed the petition on the grounds that all of its faculty members are managerial or supervisory personnel and hence not employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). A Board-appointed hearing officer held hearings over a period of five months, generating a voluminous record.

The university administrative structure is similar to that of many private universities, with ultimate authority being vested in a board of trustees. Faculty power at Yeshiva’s schools extends beyond strictly academic concerns. The faculty at each school make recommendations to the dean or director in every case of faculty hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, termination, and promotion. Although the final decision is reached by the central administration on the advice of the dean or director, the overwhelming majority of faculty recommendations are implemented. In addition, some faculties make final decisions regarding the admission, expulsion, and graduation of individual students. Others have decided questions involving teaching loads, student absence policies, tuition and enrollment levels, and in one case the location of a school.

A three-member panel of the Board granted the union’s petition and directed an election in a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time faculty members at the affected schools. The Board concluded that the faculty are professional employees entitled to the protection of the Act because “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 employer, and final authority rests with the Board of Trustees.” The union won the election and was certified by the Board. The university refused to bargain, reasserting its view that the faculty are managerial. The Board ordered the university to bargain. However, the court of appeals denied the enforcement petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.].