REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200) – Community of Interest

Single Topic for Decision 2422H

View all topics for Decision 2422H

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

No one criterion in the Board’s community of interest analysis is determinative. All criteria are considered, some criteria may receive different weight and consideration in different factual settings in order to further the purposes of the statute. Hearing Officer’s finding that Unit 18 employees do not have similar levels of education as other groups of academic employees was not supported by the record and even at odds with the Hearing Officer’s own factual findings. However, because of the relatively minor role played by educational levels in the proposed decision’s community of interest analysis, the error was determinative or sufficient to require reversing the Hearing Officer’s ultimate conclusion that Unit 18 members do not share a sufficient community of interest with current Professors of Practice to warrant the latter’s inclusion in Unit 18. Unlike unfair practice cases, in unit determination proceedings, there is no adjudication of unfair practice allegations against a respondent. Because unit determination proceedings lack the kind of notice or due process protections necessary for a finding of liability against a party, the Board declined to decide whether an employer’s email correspondence demonstrated anti-union animus in a representation matter. Because unit placement determinations are based largely on the actual duties assigned and performed, Hearing Officer appropriately denied petition regarding Visiting Professor of Practice series, where the positions were vacant and thus, there were no assigned duties to consider.