Inthelmtterof :

:
tJNnmxITYoF~Im : case No. SPP-5130
:
-al& : Decision No. 1856
:
IBJIvERsmoFcoNNEcTIc!urcHAPTER, : February 4, 1980
AMERICANASSX!IATIoN OE'UNIVEFGXTY :
PROFESSORS :

A PPEARANCES:
--------a--
Ms. &an Ceetter, Assistant Vice President, and
Mr. Neil Macy,
for University of Connecticut
Zemn, C&me & Ellis
F; AW;l;" S. Zemn, Esq.,
. . . .
mmSIoN
and
DISMISSAL OF CCXPLAlYNT
On April 17, 1979, University of Connecticut Chapter, American Association
ofUniversity Professors (MUP) filed with the Connecticut State Board. of Latmr
Relations bard) a carplaint alleging that the University of Connecticut
(lJniv~$ity) had engaged and was engaging in practices prohibited by an Act
m Collective Bargaining for State Dtployees (Act) in that:
.
The RESEQmmT is refusing to bargain collectivell; pursuant to
statutory requixemnts with respect to part-tine and temporary
employees and specifically refuses to ackncwledge tkiat tie
ccxplainant represents all teachixg and faculty employed half-
tima or more pumxnt to tie starxlards est&li.shed ky the
Connecticut State Board of I&or Relations in the case of
Federation of Technical College Teachers, Amrican Federation
of Teachers, Lccal 1932 AFL-CIO and bard of Trustees of
Connecticut State Technical Colleges, Et Al, Decision Number 1567.
Acanprehensivestatutoryrerr‘Eldywasreguested.
After the requisite preliminary steps had been duly taken the matter came
before the Board for a hearing on Septerrber 10, 1979, at which the parties
appeared, were represented, and were fully heard. E&h parties filed written
briefs which were received by the Ward on January 9, 1980 (mivemity) and .
January 16, 1980 (AAUP).
On the basis of the whole record before us we make the follcxing findings
'of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
Findings of Fact
1. The University is an employetwithin themaningof theAct.
2. Unive.rsityofConnecticut@apter,mUPisanerrp?lgreeorganiza-
tion within the nraning of the Act.
3. On July 15, 1976, the Beard issued a decision an3 certification of
representative i.u which it certifjed that AAUP ms the exclusive representative
of all the following designated employees of the University:
 I ^. .

I
I ,
I
. all Faculty I&s-&s (University Professors, Professors, Associate
Professors, Assistant Professors, Instructors, Assistant In-
structors) andfacultyequatedranksof
x x x
inadditiou to the following:
Iectur~sonregularpqroll _
Excludeda?x?:
President, Vice Presidents, Associate and Assistant Vice Presidents,
Assistants to the President, Assistants to Vice-President, Assistant
to Deans, Deans, Associate and Assistant Deans, Director of Office
of Institutional Research, Branch Directors, Director of Alumni Affairs,
Manager of the Auditorium, Director of Sunmer Session and Credit Exten-
sion, Director, Associate Director and Assistant Director of Ag+icul-
tural Experiment Station, Director, Assistant Director ~Associate
Director of Cooperative Extension, General Counsel of the University,
'Faculty of the Health Center, Faculty of the School of Law, Faculty of
E.O. smith Secondary Schcol,Librarians, andall other employeesof the
University of Connecticut.
This definition of the unit was based on the parties' agreen-ent for consent
election.
4. On March 31, 1977, the parties executed a collective bargaining agree-
mnt effective frcxn July 1, 1977, through June 30, 1979 (Contract).
5. Intherecognitionclauseof theContractthe rankoflecturer
(regular payroll) was included in the bargaining unit.
,. d .
1 6. In addition to the regular payroll the University has at all material
times ntaintained a special payroll which is historically the outgrowth of what
was a voucher payroll for people who did short term "one shot kinds of things."
All of the faculty ranks listed in paragraph 3, supra, except that of lecturer,
were on the general payroll. Scmalecturers wereon thegeneralpayroll, SCme
on the special.
7. Special payroll lecturer is the title used to designate non-tenure
track, temporary, part time persons who teach a cowzse or courses one semster
atatime. They get no fringe benefits and m, seniority rights.
8. Smsof theparttifielecturersonspecialpayrollareonplayed to
teach half time or more.
9. The Contract contained an article providing salary increases and fringe
benefits for members of the bargaining unit. These were not extended to leC-,
turers on the special payroll: their cmpensation was set unilaterally by the
University during the term of the Contract.
10. There is no evidence that AAUP sought to negotiate for 1ectUrerS on
the special payroll during the bargaining sessions that culminated in the
Contract.
Il. Duringnegotiations for asecondcontractAWPproposed
(a) Lhat the Contract "be expanded to a&m&edge
contractual coverage for all teaching faculty
employedsixhourspersemesterormreregard-
less of the payroll mode."
(b) terns andconditions of ex@qmantforlecturers
onthe specialpayrollwfioteachhalftimoormre.

I 12. The University did bargain about the proposal described in paragraph
11(a) but refused to accede to it. In the course of neqotiations AAUP droppea
thisproposaland finallyagreedtoa second contracttbatcontainsarecogni-
tionclauselike that in theContractinallmit.erialrespects.

1 -2-

.
 13. The L!niversity ref:rd to barGin &cut the term cand ccnclitions
of er@oynkent of lecturc~xs on the special pqroll (cxployed half time or
n-ore) on theground thattheywerenotin thebargainingunit.
14. During the course of the hearing before the Board the issue
tendered by AAUP was narrowed to the refusal to bargain described in para-
graph 13, -0
15. At no relevant time was a petition filed with the Board for inclusion
intheunit0flectux.r~ on special payroll byAADP, theclniversity, orbyany
of suchle&um.rs.
16. Therewasnoevidencetendingtoshow~tal~jarityoflecturers
onspecialpayrollwished tobe included intheunit.
Conclusions of Law
1. Lecturers on the special payroll who work half tima or more are
mployeeswithinthenmningof theAct.
2. WhiletheActrfquires theE@szdtopermita single faculty unit
i.ntheDniversity, it does not preclude anagremnentbetween the parties to
exclude one or more classes of faculty members frcm such unit.
3. Theparties in interestinsuchagr~tareemployees in the class
offacultymembers involvedand theUniversity.
4. If a union fails to include a class of faculty members in its petition
or its agreement for consent election this fact creates a rebuttable presmxp-
tion that a majority of rmnbers of that class do not wish representation
,throughinclusionin thebargainingunit.
5. In the present case neither the original petition by AADP, the
agreement between the parties, nor the certification included lecturers on
the special payroll.

6. Suchlecturerswere notmnbers of thebargaining unit.

7. The University's refusal to bargain about the tern and conditions
of qloyment of lecturers on the special payroll did not violate the Act.
Discussion
This case is governed by our decision in University of ---.Connecticut,
Dec. No. 1817, which was issued on October 22, 1979, after the hearing in
the present case. We there held that part time lecturers on the special
payroll w-e employees under the Act but that they were not included in the
bargaining unit agreed to by the parties and defined in the Bosrd's certifi-
cation, We also held that classes of arployees (within the rreaning of the
Act) might be excluded from the bargaining unit by mutual agreemnt. Although
the present ccmplaint deals with a different group of lecturers on the special
~~11, the reasoning in the former case is dispositive of the issues presented
.
AALP is unhappy with our forms decision (No. 1817) and has appealed it
to the Superior Court. In the present case AAUP asks us to reconsider and to
overrule decision number 1817. We have carefully reconsidered it but find it
essentially sound, and reaffirm it. Curreconsideration,takentcgetherwith
what has occurred in the present case, has, however, shown us that our reason-
'- may not have been clearly expressed and prcperly understccd in cne particu-
lar. We feel called upon therefore to restate and clarify that part of OUT
reasoning in the hope that this will lead to better understanding by all parties
concerned. We refer to the proposition stated in paragraph 4 of our conclusions
of law in decision nun&xx 1817 and part II of the discussion. Cur fourth
conclusion of law reads:
While the Act requires theEk3ardtopxmita single faculty
unit in theuniversity, itdoes notprecludeanagrement
between the parties to exclude one or more classes of faculty
ttrders fran such unit.

-3-

. _.-_c.-. -,__ . . . . _ . ..“. _ -._ . . . .

 3% our discussion WE? said:

Weconstrue the Acttorequireusto~mitthe

faculty of the University to cceprise a separate unit
and also to limit the number of such faculty units to
one. This leaves rmn for the Board to certify a unit,
upon agreement of the parties, which contains less than
all the eligible employees.
It appears to us that the parties have construed these passages to mean
thattheUniversity and AAUPare the parties in interest and that (a) they
my agree to exclude one or a-ore classes of statutory employees from the
bargaining unit and that (b) the question of such exclusion is one upon which
the University is obliged to bargain but not to agree (as ~uld. be the case
with the usual terms and conditions of employment). If indeed that is the
~tierstandingof theparties, thenwedid failtomakeourmaningclear;
certainly our statementwas eliptical. We shall try here to set forth all
the steps inour reasoning.
The&rties" are basically the employer arid the employees. The union
becone. the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
upon certification or valid recognition, but the union is not the representa-
tive of classes of employees which it has mitt&i frcm its petition or aqfee-
mt for an election. And neither the University nor A?LUT has a right to '
deny to a class of statutory employees the right to be represented in the
only bargaining unit which the Act permits for faculty members. Nor may the
University and AAUP exclude such a class by their agrement unless that agree-
mt correslxmds with the wishes of a majority of the qloyees in that class.
To be sure we used language in decision number 1817 l&h suggested that
we meant by the "parties" the University and AAUP. This was eliptical. The
cd&ted steps inowc reasoningwere these: AAIJJ? agreed not to include leo-
turers on special payroll. In oux experience unionssee!! to represent all
employees \<ho want representation and in their organizational drives they find
L out pretty much what classes of employees want the union as their bam~aining
agent. This experience has led us to adopt a rebuttable presur@ion that the
extent of a union's petition or agreement for election is an accurate rreasure
of the extent of errrployee desire for union representation.
There was no evidence before us in the former case that tended to rebut
the presmption. We therefore concluded that neither the University nor the
excluded mlployees wanted them in the unit. We said that they were excluded
by agreement of the parties but we did not man to imply that either the
University or AALTP could keep them out against their will by withholding
agreenmt to their inclusion. Statutory employees have a right to represen-
tation in collective bargaining if a mjority of their class mnts it. Since
the only way faculty employees can enjoy this right is to be included in the
single faculty unit permitted by the Act, then they have a right to inclusion
in this Init. This right is derived from the Act and is not depancient upon the'
University's agreement. !Ihe extent of the University's right in this respect
is to insist on a E&rd conducted election to determine whether a majority of
the employees in the class do in fact want representation through inclusion in
the unit.
The sole issue presented by AAUP in the present case is whether the
university violated the Act by its refusal to bargain over the terms and
conditions of employment of lecturers on the special payroll. The University's
duty to bargain depexxled in turn on whether such lecturers were menberS Of the
bargainingunitwhen the refusaloccuxred. Since wehold thattheywerenot,
the aat@aintmustbedismissed.

ORDER

By virtue of and pursuant to the poker vested in the Connecticut State

Boardof IaborRelationsbyAnActCon 0xningCollectiveBargainingf~

-4-

_ .
,
State fiployces, it is
ORDERED, that the canplaintbe, azxd the sameishex&y,dismissed.

C@NECTICUl'STATEEOARDOFMBORREIATICNS

By s/ Fleminq Jams, Jr.

Fleming J-s, Jr., Chainran

s/ Susan Neredith
SusanMer&i~

s/Michael J. Allen
Michael J. Allen

Dr.JoanGeetter
Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs
lb.i.versity of Connecticut
U-86, Gulley Hall czELR.rIFIED
Sbxrs, Connecticut 06268 (RRR)
*Mr. Neil Macy
10 f;ELllard Lrive
Blocxnfield, Connecticut 06002

EdtJard Purcell, Executive Director

University of Connecticut Chapter, AAUP
P.O. Box 185 CERTIFIED
Storrs, Conrecticut C6268 mRR)
William S. Z-, Esq.
18 North Main Street
West Hartford, Corxiecticut 06107

-. -,“. _. .