Skip to main content

NLRB: Graduate Research and Teaching Students Can Unionize


Columbia University - NLRB


Facts:  A group of Columbia University graduate students sought to join a union and collectively bargain with the University.  Note, the students joined with the United Auto Workers to push for a union on campus.

Finding:  The NLRB began its analysis with a nod to the fact that the primary question to be decided was whether graduate students who perform services at a university in connection with their studies are statutory employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act ("Act").  In this instance, the Board pointed out that the Act does not offer a definition of "employee" itself, but "employee" has been broadly construed.  The Board then turned to several prior decisions which had a direct impact on this analysis:  a 1999 decision in Boston Medical Center which held that interns, residents, and clinical fellows at a teaching hospital were statutory employees entitled to engage in collective bargaining; a 2000 decision in NYU, that relied upon Boston Medical Center, in which the Board first held that certain university graduate assistants were statutory employees; as well as a 2004 Board decision in Brown University which overruled NYU and held that graduate assistants cannot be statutory employees because they "are primarily students and have a primarily education, not economic, relationship with their university."

In this decision, the Board disagreed with Brown University and held that graduate students can be treated as statutory employees under the Act, where they perform work, at the discretion of the university, for which they are compensated.  The Board was unmoved by the argument that the imposition of collective bargaining on graduate students would improperly intrude into the educational process and be inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the Act.  Instead, the Board ruled that there was no legal authority to support this slippery slope argument. 

Decision:  In a 3 - 1 decision, the NLRB issued a ruling that reversed a prior Board ruling from 2004 and held that and graduate students employed by private universities are employees and therefore permitted to unionize. 

The Takeaway:  A week or so ago, I noted that with the end of Board Member Kent Hirozawa's term coming up shortly, several pro employee rulings from the NLRB were likely by the end of August.  Well, wouldn't you know it, Board Member Hirozawa joined the majority that handed down a decision earlier this week which will potentially have a far reaching impact at private universities across the country.  To the surprise of few, the NLRB found that a prior Board decision from 2004 (in which the NLRB had a more employer friendly tendency) was invalid as it "deprived an entire category of workers of the protection of the Act, without a convincing justification in either the statutory language or the policies of the Act."  In essence, this decision means that any student who does either research or teaching at a private university is considered an "employee" and therefore entitled to join a union and collectively bargain.  It goes without saying that this decision has the potential to add thousands of new members to the union ranks...something that would halt the declining number of union members in the country during the past few years. 

After the NLRB's decision was handed down, Columbia University issued a statement in which it disagreed with the decision and left open the possibility of an appeal.  Consider how far reaching this decision could go:  Private universities could now be limited in choosing who teaches a particular class, salary costs could rise, strikes could become a common occurrence on campus, etc., etc.  Given the potential negative impact this could have on private universities (and the fact that every Ivy League school opposed the Board's decision), it would surprise me if Columbia University did not ultimately choose to appeal the matter.

Date:  August 23, 2016

Opinionapps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45821c20d4

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per