N.L.R.B. v. Yeshiva University
United States Supreme Court
444 U.S. 672 (1980)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Yeshiva University (Yeshiva) (defendant) comprised five undergraduate and eight graduate private schools in New York City. A board of trustees, led by a president, was ultimately responsible for Yeshiva’s operations. An executive council of deans and administrators made recommendations to the president. The individual schools were substantially autonomous, headed by a dean or director. The faculty at each school met formally and informally with the dean or director over numerous issues, including curriculum, grading, admissions, schedules, and matriculation. The faculty also made recommendations to the dean or director on faculty employment matters, including hiring, tenure, promotion, and termination. The administrative decisionmakers nearly always accepted the dean’s advice on employment matters, which were based on faculty recommendations. A labor union (the union) (plaintiff) petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (the board) for certification as the representative of a bargaining unit comprising all full-time faculty at 10 of Yeshiva’s schools. The board approved the union’s petition, but Yeshiva refused to bargain with the union based on the university’s position that full-time faculty members were managerial or supervisory personnel who were excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. The board sought an enforcement order in the Second Circuit, which was denied. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.