C. W. Post Center of Long Island University, 453 (1972)

3. W. POST CENTER 453

3. W. Post Center of Long Island University and United Federation of College Teachers, Local 1460, American Federation of Teachers, AFLCIO, Petitioner. Case 29-RC-1488

July 27, 1972 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND

DIRECTION

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS

FANNING AND PENELLO

Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the National Labor Relations Board on April 23, 1971,1 an election was conducted on May 10 and 11, 1971, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that 470 ballots were cast, of which 214 were for and 208 were against the Petitioner, 47 were challenged, and 1 was void.

As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board' s Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on August 6, 1971, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots and notice of hearing.

Therein he concluded that the issues of fact had arisen concerning the eligibility of 37 challenged individuals whose status was in dispute and that the eligibility of the 10 remaining challenged voters was left in abeyance when the parties failed to stipulate on their inclusion in or exclusion from the appropriate unit. Accordingly, he ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by his investigation.

Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Herzl S. Eisenstadt, and on February 17, 1972, the Hearing Officer issued and served on the parties his report and recommendations on challenged ballots. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Hearing Officer recommended to the Board that (1) the Challenges to the ballots of 9 individuals be sustained for the reason that they are supervisors or managerial employees and their ballots remain unopened and uncounted; (2) the challenges to the ballots of 3 individuals be sustained and their ballots remain unopened and uncounted inasmuch as 2 of them are not professional employ189 NLRB No 109 z 195 NLRB No 23

3 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as in our opinion the record in this case, including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties 4 We adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the challenges to the ballots of losue and Palmer be sustained and the challenge to the ballot of Noss be overruled, for the reasons stated by the Hearing Officer In the ees and the third does not fall within any of the included classifications; (3) the challenges to the ballots of 24 individuals be sustained because they were not regular part-time adjunct faculty members on the Employer's payroll as of the period for eligibility as set forth in the Board's Direction of Election and in the Regional Director's notice of election; (4) the challenges to the ballots of 7 individuals be overruled, inasmuch as they were regular part-time members of the faculty, and their ballots and that of a full-time member of faculty be opened and counted; and (5) the challenges to the ballots of 3 individuals be overruled and their ballots be opened and counted inasmuch as at the determinative time they occupied unit classifications.

Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report and recommendations, arguing that the election should be set aside since the Board in the subsequent Manhattan College2 case laid down an eligibility standard which differed from that set forth in the direction of election in this case.

In the alternative, the Employer excepts to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that challenges be sustained as to the ballots of 19 adjunct professors who did not teach in the spring semester in which the election was conducted but did teach in other semesters. In addition, the Employer excepts to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that challenges be sustained to the ballots of Robert losue and Winthrop Palmer as having supervisory or managerial status. Finally, the Employer excepts to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the challenge to the ballot of Theodore Noss be overruled.

The Board has considered the Hearing Officer's report, the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case,3 and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations except as...