NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 8 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Pagano, Philip G. – Creighton Law Review, 1981
Previous faculty National Labor Relations Board status decisions are analyzed to discern the rationale behind the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to follow prior holdings of the Board. The Board can now either set a procedure for determining faculty status or declare faculty protected, forcing Congress to address the issue directly. (MSE)
Descriptors: Collective Bargaining, College Faculty, Court Litigation, Federal Legislation
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Finkin, Matthew W. – Journal of College and University Law, 1980
Viewed from the perspective of administrative law, labor law, or just higher education, the Yeshiva decision does not make sense. It would be appropriate in future litigation to compel the court to do what it refused to do here, that is to address the extent to which the industrial analogy applies to colleges and universities. (MSE)
Descriptors: Collective Bargaining, College Administration, College Faculty, Court Litigation
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Twomey, David P. – American Business Law Journal, 1981
A congressional amendment to the National Labor Relations Act appears to be the most viable means of providing faculty members the bargaining rights held by all other professionals in this country, after the Yeshiva University decision. (MSE)
Descriptors: Collective Bargaining, College Faculty, Court Litigation, Faculty Workload
Johnson, Roberta R. – Washburn Law Journal, 1980
By acknowledging a specific setting, as at Yeshiva University, where faculty are legally considered managerial, the court lays a foundation on which private colleges may attempt to build, by trying to fit the "mature" governing structure outlined in the court decision. Journal available from the School of Law, Washburn University,…
Descriptors: Collective Bargaining, College Faculty, Court Litigation, Higher Education
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Lee, Barbara A. – Journal of College and University Law, 1980
The Yeshiva decision shows that several actions must be taken to clarify or resolve issues: several legal terms must be redefined, more comprehensive fact-finding is needed, and higher education collective bargaining must be better understood to distinguish faculty governance roles more clearly. (MSE)
Descriptors: Collective Bargaining, College Administration, College Faculty, Court Litigation
Sabalot, Deborah A. – Loyola Law Review, 1980
It is submitted that, in the court decision on Yeshiva University and collective bargaining, the court failed to provide the National Labor Relations Board with any clear guidelines for applying its managerial context test. The decision's consistency with the National Labor Relations Act's intent is questioned. (MSE)
Descriptors: Administrators, Collective Bargaining, College Faculty, Court Litigation
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Kegelman, Joan B. – Seton Hall Law Review, 1980
The exclusion of faculty members as managerial employees may seriously disadvantage all professional employees, the very group the National Labor Relations Act was amended to protect. (Journal availability: Dennis & Company, 251 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14203.) (MSE)
Descriptors: Collective Bargaining, College Administration, College Faculty, Constitutional Law
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Bodner, Gerald A. – Journal of College and University Law, 1980
Amidst widely disparate predictions as to the effect the Yeshiva decision will have in higher education, traditional legal wisdom would suggest awaiting further NLRB and court decisions for guidance on Yeshiva's impact on different institutions, especially given the various existing and potential unionization arrangements. (MSE)
Descriptors: Collective Bargaining, College Faculty, Court Litigation, Employer Employee Relationship