Boston University Chapter v. N.L.R.B.

835 F.2d 399 (1987)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Boston University Chapter v. N.L.R.B.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
835 F.2d 399 (1987)

Facts

In 1974 the Boston University Chapter, American Association of University Professors (the union) (plaintiff) filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (defendant) to certify a bargaining unit composed of all regular full-time faculty members at Boston University (BU). The certification was requested pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (the act). Managerial employees had been excluded from the act by a judicial decision of the United States Supreme Court. BU objected to the petition, claiming that full-time faculty were managerial employees and thereby excluded from the act’s coverage. After a vote in favor of certification, the union was certified by the NLRB. However, the union’s request for bargaining was rejected by BU. Subsequently, the union filed an unfair-labor-practice charge against BU, alleging violations of the act. The NLRB agreed with the union, and it ordered BU to collectively bargain. BU appealed, and the NLRB’s decision was affirmed. While BU’s petition to the United States Supreme Court was pending, the Supreme Court decided N.L.R.B. v. Yeshiva University, a similar case, holding that full-time university faculty, under certain circumstances, are managerial employees under the act. Subsequently, on petition from BU, the case was remanded to the NLRB for further consideration in light of Yeshiva. On remand, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) made findings of fact regarding the responsibilities of full-time faculty and determined that, based on the Yeshiva ruling, they were managerial employees. The NLRB affirmed the recommended ruling and issued an order dismissing the charge against BU. The union appealed the decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Torruella, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership