This article is a discussion of the role of the University Counsel (sometimes called the General Counsel) as "adviser, officer, administrator, and agent" in the university setting. The article discusses the nature of the "fiduciary duty" in university governance and describes several of the substantive areas of the law with…

The Supreme Court's decision in the National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University court case is discussed. National reactions to the case, arguments in favor of the Yeshiva route, arguments against the Yeshiva route, and financial considerations are discussed. (MLW)

Employees and faculty members at private institutions, it is suggested, have the right to decide whether they wish to engage in collective bargaining. Faculty members should seek support for narrower legislation establishing that participation in institutional governance would not automatically confer managerial status on faculty members. (MLW)

The Supreme Court decision in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Yeshiva University is discussed, along with a test for determining "managerial employees." In this case, the court held that full-time faculty at nonprofit, private, higher education institutions are managerial employees, where their recommendations are normally…

The impact of public universities of the Supreme Court's Yeshiva decision regarding faculty collective bargaining is clarified through analysis of the case's meaning for the University of California, Berkeley. A review of the literature on the relationship between collective bargaining and academic governance is provided. (Author/MLW)

Over the past decade, two developments have greatly affected the conduct of affairs in academic institutions in the United States: the increasing role of the courts and the growth of collective bargaining. Collective agreement, impasse and unilateral action, the strike, and the expiration of the collective agreement are discussed. (MLW)

The impact of the Supreme Court Decision, "National Labor Relations Board versus Yeshiva University," on collective bargaining at colleges and universities is considered. The basic thrust of the majority decision is that faculty are not under the umbrella of the National Labor Relations Act and that administration may refuse to negotiate…

A controversy over whether university faculty are "employees" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act is discussed. The U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. Yeshiva University ruled that faculty members are "managers." (Available from: Wake Forest University School of Law, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, $4.00) (Author/MLW)

The historical background of collective bargaining in higher education is considered, along with some implications for the future. The major purpose of collective bargaining is to lead to an employment contract. Public institutions do not come under the National Labor Relations Board since state actions establish them and they are subject to state…

The repercussions from the Supreme Court decision in National Labor Relations Board v Yeshiva University are discussed. The court held that the university's full-time faculty members include managerial employees excluded from collective bargaining rights. The verdict is seen as preventing compulsory collective bargaining from spreading. (MLW)

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)

When Yeshiva University refused to recognize its certified faculty union, declaring that its faculty were managerial and therefore not covered by the National Labor Relations Act, a legal battle was set in motion which has now affected all of private higher education. (MLW)

Fourteen university claims filed in the wake of the Yeshiva decision, to avoid collective bargaining with faculty, are analyzed. It is concluded that neither the National Labor Relations Board nor any regional board has created, in these dispositions, a governance model typefying the "mature" university needed to evaluate faculty…

The Supreme Court's decision that tenured faculty members at Yeshiva University are managers and do not have the right to unionize and enter into a collective bargaining agreement is discussed. It is suggested that the surge toward unionization begun in 1971 by private sector faculty has apparently been curbed. (MLW)

The Yeshiva decision emerged at an unfortunate time for many professionals. Public policy, as embodied in our labor relations laws, should encourage consultative decision making in matters of professional concern without penalizing those professional by extinguishing their rights as employees to unionize. (Author/MSE)