Carroll University
Vol. 32 Issue 8
DENIED Court
UNION
FACULTY
Liz Ramus
Editorial Board On March 13 the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Carroll University, formerly Carroll College Inc., reversing the previous National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision ordering Carroll College Inc. to begin collective bargaining with the Carroll faculty. The decision is the first win for administration since the legal battle began on Nov. 17, 2004 when the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers of America (UAW) filed a petition to represent faculty. In the unanimous decision the court stated that under University of Great Falls v. NLRB (2002), Carroll’s religious affiliation with the United
Carroll Faculty: vs.
Decisions through the years
Nov. 17, 2004 UAW files a petition to represent Carroll's faculty.
INSIDE
March 25, 2009
sides with Carroll over faculty
Presbyterian Church exempts it from NLRB jurisdiction. Additionally, under NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979), Carroll cannot have its religious affiliation challenged due to protection under the First Amendment’s Religious Clauses. In 2004 faculty began an effort to unionize under the UAW due to the employment conditions under Dr. Frank Falcone’s administration. Faculty wanted to create stable employment for non-tenured, tenured and tenure-track faculty. Between 2004 and 2007 Carroll College Inc. and faculty battled in NLRB hearings over two issues. The college argued it was exempt from the National Labor Relations Act because of religious affiliation and argued that faculty are “managerial employees” and
cannot unionize, citing NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980). In the March 13 decision the court did not address both arguments. Carroll won on grounds of religious affiliation under Great Falls and therefore did not need to move on to Yeshiva, the second argument. According to the court, “Carroll easily satisfies the Great Falls test. The college’s charter documents make clear that it holds itself out to students, faculty and the broader community as providing a religious educational environment.” Carroll is a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and has a recognized covenant agreement with the Synod of Lakes and Prairies from 1985. “In Yeshiva (1980) the United States Supreme Court argued that in a shared governance
campus in private institutions, the employees, the faculty are too much like managers and not enough like the people who are getting direction from managers which are employees,” said Carroll University Legal Counsel Cat Jorgens. “Because it was a jurisdictional argument the court decided that issue [Great Falls] first”, said Jorgens. Had Carroll lost the first argument, the court would have addressed whether faculty members were managerial employees. Noted for his expertise in communication law and author of Communication Law: The Supreme Court and the First Amendment (Revised Edition) professor Dr. Joseph J. Hemmer Jr. commented on the court’s ruling. “The surprising aspect of the Court decision is the conclusion that Carroll College
easily satisfies the Great Falls test. That conclusion is supported by a ‘less intrusive’ application of prong one of the Great Falls ‘bright line’ rule, namely the issue of whether Carroll provides a ‘religious educational environment’”, said Hemmer.. “The disappointing aspect of the Court decision is that while the court stressed the Free Exercise Religious clause of the First Amendment it ignored the Free Speech Clause of the amendment,” said Hemmer. Hemmer continued in saying, “The decision denies to faculty the right of association, the privilege of shared governance, and the guarantee of academic freedom that is also protected by the First Amendment.” According to Jorgens, from the March 13 decision the
Nov. 30-Dec. 6, 2004 The National Labor Relations Board held a hearing to decide whether to permit representation. There were two issues: 1. Whether the college was exempt from the NLRA because of religious affiliation 2. Whether faculty were "managerial employees" who are not permitted to unionize. The precedent-setting case on this issue in higher education is Yeshiva. You'll hear some people refer to this as the Yeshiva Issue.
Jan. 13, 2005 The regional director of the NLRB issued a Direction of Election permitting representation. Carroll appealed.
Aug. 26, 2005 The Board rejects Carroll's appeal.
Dec. 4, 2008 Carroll's attorneys present oral arguments to the DC Circuit Court
FACULTY UNION page 3
Feb. 11, 2005 The election is held.
Between 2005-2007 March 13, 2009 Carroll files several requests for review, DC Circuit opinion. all of them unsuccessful.
May 11, 2005 The National Labor Relations Board agrees to review the religious affiliation issue, but not the Yeshiva issue.
July 20, 2007 The national NLRB issued a decision and order for Carroll to bargain. We appealed this directly to the DC Circuit Court.
http:/ / newperspective.cc.edu
© 2008 carroll
university