Syracuse University, 755 (2007)

Extract

---

Syracuse University, 755 (2007)

Syracuse University and Teamsters Local 317 and Staff Complaint Process. Case 3–CA–23985

August 15, 2007

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber

On October 29, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Eric M. Fine issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and a reply brief in further support of its exceptions. The General Counsel filed an answering brief.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs1 and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.

The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent’s employee complaint procedure, the Staff Complaint Process (SCP), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. We conclude that it is not.

Background

We begin by reviewing the development of the SCP, its structure, its operation, and its role in conjunction with the unionization effort by employees in the parking services department of the University.2

Following a decision in 1999 by the university chancellor to redesign a longstanding but underutilized and management-dominated complaint handling procedure, a committee of the Respondent’s managers drafted the outline of the SCP. The Respondent’s goal was to “develop a new procedure that is user-friendly, fair to all concerned, trusted by all participants, and that provides timely resolution of workplace complaints.” Accordingly, beginning in early 2002,3 the Respondent held a series of “town meetings” with the nonunion personnel (the intended users)4 to “discuss new procedures for resolving staff complaints about workplace problems” and to seek input from them before finalizing the SCP. With this input from the intended users, the Respondent finally approved the SCP in April. The SCP governing documents specify the types of grievances eligible for processing through the SCP as well as the types of grievances that are not covered.5 Between April and August, the Respondent presented the SCP to the chancellor’s cabinet, deans, and department heads.

The Respondent introduced the SCP in its final form to employees in early September in a memorandum that described the SCP as “a new process intended to resolve employee relations issues between nonbargaining unit University employees and their supervisors,” and sought volunteers to serve in the various official roles established in the SCP.6 More than 150 personnel volunteered to serve, over two-thirds of them nonsupervisory employees. These volunteers form the SCP “pool of potential panelists, advocates and mediators,” from which names are drawn to fill the positions necessary to process complaints accepted into the SCP.

The Respondent announced the implementation of the SCP effective January 3, 2003. At all relevant times, the Respondent has recruited and “validated”7 the volunteer participants and trained them in the operation of the SCP and in advocacy and mediation techniques, using manuals and training programs developed by Respondent’s human resources department (HRD) and other University resources. The SCP operates during paid work time using facilities and supplies provided by the Respondent.

In the meantime, Teamsters Local 317, the Union, filed a petition in late October for an election in a unit of the Respondent’s parking services employees, who would be covered by the SCP.8 The Respondent expressed its opposition to unionization by conducting an election campaign, in which the SCP was featured. Jack Matson, the director of staff relations and recruitment in the Respondent’s HRD, conducted a series of meetings with small groups of unit employees. Each employee attended about 10 meetings. During the meetings, Matson generally explained the Respondent’s position disfavoring unionization, and presented the SCP to employees as “an employee-based hearing and review process” and a new, cost-free “benefit.” For example, Matson told employees to “[d]o the math, [the SCP is] available to you at no cost, while if you choose to organize, then it’s going to cost you . . . union dues.” Many of the Respondent’s campaign handouts similarly promoted the SCP as a new, cost-free employee benefit.

SCP Officials and Participants

Respondent’s HRD play...

See the full content of this document

---