## Facts

- A faculty union sought to represent a unit of all regular full-time Boston University faculty except those in the Schools of Law, Dentistry, and Medicine.
- The University objected to collective-bargaining coverage, asserting the faculty were supervisory or managerial employees excluded from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- The NLRB originally ordered an election, certified the union, and later found the University committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain; a prior court decision enforced that bargaining order.
- While further review was pending, the Supreme Court decided *NLRB v. Yeshiva University*, requiring reconsideration of whether private-university faculty are “managerial employees” based on their governance authority.
- On remand, an Administrative Law Judge developed an extensive record on faculty governance and concluded the faculty were managerial under *Yeshiva*; the NLRB affirmed and dismissed the unfair-labor-practice charges.
- The union petitioned for judicial review of the NLRB’s post-*Yeshiva* dismissal order.
- The remand record focused on faculty authority and influence over curriculum and academic policy, academic standards, personnel decisions (hiring, promotion, tenure, dismissal), and committee-based governance affecting institutional policy and some resource-allocation matters.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s conclusion that the faculty in the certified unit were “managerial employees” excluded from NLRA coverage under *NLRB v. Yeshiva University*.
2. Whether, given that classification, the NLRB properly dismissed the union’s unfair-labor-practice charges premised on the University’s refusal to bargain under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5).

## Decision

- The court denied the union’s petition for review and sustained the NLRB’s order dismissing the unfair-labor-practice charges.
- The court held the NLRB reasonably applied *Yeshiva* and that the managerial-status determination was supported by substantial evidence.
- Because the faculty were managerial employees excluded from the NLRA’s definition of “employee,” the University had no statutory duty to bargain with the union.

## Legal Principles

- Managerial employees are excluded from the NLRA’s collective-bargaining protections.
- Under *Yeshiva*, private-university faculty are managerial when they participate in governance to a degree that they effectively formulate and implement institutional policy on central matters such as curriculum, academic standards, and key personnel decisions.
- Reviewing courts defer to the NLRB’s factfinding and uphold the Board’s classification decisions when supported by substantial evidence and based on a reasonable application of governing precedent.
- If the bargaining unit consists of managerial employees, an employer’s refusal to bargain does not violate NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5).

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld the NLRB’s post-*Yeshiva* determination that Boston University’s full-time faculty exercised sufficient authority in core academic governance and personnel matters to be classified as managerial employees, leaving them outside NLRA collective-bargaining coverage and requiring dismissal of refusal-to-bargain unfair-labor-practice charges.


Bos. Univ. Chapter, Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 399 (1st Cir. 1987)