ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries I n this i ssue: Collective Bargaining and Academic L i b r a r i a n s ......................................... 1 N ELIN ET-ACRL/N EC Joint Meeting and Conference 3 News From the Chapters . . . 5 Retrenchment in Higher Education 6 News From the Field 8 Index 14a People ................................................ 23 Classified Advertising 25 ISSN 0010-0870 C O L L E G E & RESEARC H LIBR n AR e IE w S s NO. 1 • JANUARY 1976 Collective Bargaining and Academic Librarians: A Review of the Decisions of the NLRB S u bm itted by C. Ja m es Schm idt D irector o f L ibraries State University o f N ew York at Albany Chairman, A C R L A cadem ic Status C om m ittee As the experience in higher education with col­ lective bargaining becomes more extensive and documented, it is possible to identify trends. Specifically, it is now possible to examine the effects of bargaining unit determination on aca­ demic librarians. Are librarians usually included in the unit with other faculty? Which positions within a library are supervisory? W hat follows is a review of decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (N L R B ). In its first unit determination decision in higher education which specifically mentioned librarians, the board concluded that these librarians are professional em­ ployees within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act, are engaged in functions closely related to teaching, and share many of the same benefits as other unit employ­ ees. Accordingly, we find they have a com­ munity of interest with the faculty and in­ clude them in the unit. [Footnote at­ tached excluded library director as super­ visor]1 In 1971, in two cases involving Fordham University, the board made the following state­ ment While the librarians d o not hav e faculty status, it is clear that some of them are professional employees and should be in­ cluded in the unit. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to determine whether any of them are supervisors.2 [em­ phasis added] In the companion case involving the question of a separate unit for the Fordham Law School, the law librarian was excluded from the faculty unit as a supervisor.3 Fordham represents the first in a series of cases which have attempted to answer the question whether the academic department chairperson is a supervisor.4 In 1972 the board included librarians in the faculty unit at Florida Southern and comment­ ed that the librarians have advanced training and possess degrees in library science, are eligi­ ble for and in some instances do have ten­ ure, attend and vote at faculty meetings, and in many respects through their func­ tions as librarians in relationship with the members of the student body make sub­ stantial contributions to the education of students, we find the librarians are profes­ sional employees engaged in functions closely related to teaching and that they have a community of interest with the faculty. Accordingly, we shall include them within the unit.5 Also in 1972, in a case involving Tusculum College,6 the Board directed the inclusion of the News issue (A ) of College & Research Libraries, vol. 37, no. 1 2 librarian and the assistant librarian in the facul­ ty unit based on the rationale used in C. W . Post, cited above. Since 1972 the board has issued six decisions about unit definition in higher education which mention librarians,7 and, in all cases, librarians, if not excluded as supervisors, have been in­ cluded in the faculty unit. T he record of the N L R B clearly indicates that it has consistently included librarians in the faculty unit based on a prima fa c ie ac­ knowledgment by the board that librarians are professionals within the meaning of the Nation­ al L abor Relations Act and that there is suffi­ cient affinity of function between faculty and librarians to create a community of interest for purposes of collective bargaining. There are two grounds under which the N L R B may have excluded librarians from fac­ ulty units. T h e first, reviewed above, was com­ munity of interest. T he second is the issue of “supervisor” which was mentioned above but not discussed in detail. In general the board seems to have had more difficulty defining the “supervisor” in its dealings with higher educa­ tion than in other fields. One of the most di­ visive unresolved issues in academic collective bargaining is the role of the department or divi­ sion head: management or labor? T he cases reviewed above for their treatment of librarians in unit determinations also raise the question of “supervisor” in the library con­ text. T h e board’s answer seems to still be in­ consistent. T h e criteria applied by the board to head librarians seem to be three: ( a ) degree o f real authority and autonomy; ( b ) whether other employees in the sam e bargaining unit are subordinates; ( c ) the fifty percent rule.8 In the New York University case the board said … we reject the Em ployer’s contention that all professional librarians possess su­ pervisory authority over nonunit employ­ ees to a degree requiring their exclusion.9 [emphasis added] … we shall exclude as supervisors only those professional librarians who supervise other employees in the unit or who spend more than fifty percent of their time super­ vising nonunit employees.10 T h e most celebrated N L R B case on the ques­ tion of the supervisor in academic libraries in­ volved an allegation of unfair labor practice at the University of Chicago.11 Inclusion of librari­ ans in a faculty unit was not at issue in this case, there being no faculty unit at the Univer­ sity of Chicago in 1972. T he board ruled against the university and issued a cease and desist order on the ground that the practices al­ leged were engaged in by a person (s) who was a supervisor within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. The University appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit. The court, in an unpublished order, upheld the board.12 Both the board and the court explicitly leave open the question of whether persons determined to be supervisors for purposes of deciding unfair practice issue would also be determined to b e supervisors in a representation case. Thus, the current criteria for excluding aca­ demic librarians from a bargaining unit on a selective basis as supervisors seem to b e those used in the NYU case cited above. A brief comment should also be made on the Claremont case.13 T he question at issue in this case was not inclusion of librarians in the unit with faculty, there being no faculty unit, nor the issue o f librarian as supervisor, but rather whether professionals and nonprofessionals in the Honnold (C larem on t) Library System con­ stitute an identifiable group of employees with a community of interest. The board ruled that the nonprofessionals in the Claremont Libraries did constitute an appropriate unit for bargain­ ing in that these employees did have a com­ munity o f interest separate from that of other nonprofessional (i.e ., clerical) employees at Claremont. However, the board also noted that it was prevented by provisions of the National L abor Relations Act from ordering the inclu­ sion of professionals (librarian s) in a bargain­ ing unit of nonprofessionals, but that the li­ brarians could elect to be included in the unit with nonprofessionals. Subsequently, those li­ brarians determined not to be supervisors did elect to be included in the nonprofessional unit. News item s f o r in clu sio n in C&RL News shou ld be sent to M a ry Frances C o llin s , A ssista n t D ire c to r o f L ib ra rie s f o r T ech nical Services, U n iv e rs ity L ib ra ry ULB-35A, State U n iv e rs ity o f New Y o rk a t A lb a n y , 1400 W a s h in g to n A v e ., A lb a n y , NY 12222. A d v e r ­ tis in g (in c lu d in g c la s s ifie d a d s) shou ld be sent to Leona Swiech, A d v e rtis in g O ffic e , A m e ric a n L i­ b ra ry A s s o c ia tio n , 50 E. H u ro n St., C h ic a g o , IL 60611. P ro d u c tio n a n d c irc u la tio n m a tte rs are han­ d le d b y A L A C e n tra l P ro d u c tio n U n it, a t the a b o v e address. News e d ito r : M a ry Frances C o llin s , A ssista n t D i­ re c to r o f L ib ra rie s fo r T ech nical Services, State U n iv e rs ity o f New Y o rk a t A lb a n y , A lb a n y . A s ­ so c ia te News e d ito r : A n n e D o w lin g , A ssista n t L i b­ b ra ria n , A c q u is itio n s D e p a rtm e n t, L ib ra ry , State U n iv e rs ity o f N e w Y o rk a t A lb a n y . E d ito r: Rich­ a rd D. Johnson, M iln e L ib ra ry , S tate U n iv e rs ity C o lle g e , O ne o n ta , New Yo rk 13820. President, A C R L : Louise G iles. Executive Se cretary, A C R L : Be verly P. Lynch. C o lle g e & Research L ib ra rie s is p u b lis h e d b y th e A s s o c ia tio n o f C o lle g e and Research L ib ra rie s , a d iv is io n o f th e A m e ric a n L ib ra ry A s so cia tio n , 17 tim e s y e a rly — 6 b im o n th ly jo u rn a l issues a n d II m o n th ly ( c o m b in in g J u ly -A u g u s t) News issues— a t 1201-05 B lu ff St., Fulton, M O 65251. S u b s c rip tio n , $15.00 a year, o r t o m em b ers o f th e d iv is io n , $7.50, in c lu d e d in dues. Second-class p o s ta g e p a id a t Fulton, M issouri 65251. © A m e ric a n L ib ra ry A sso c ia tio n 1976. A ll m a te ria l in th is ío u rn a l s u b je c t to c o p y r ig h t b y the A m e r i­ can L ib ra ry A sso c ia tio n m ay be p h o to c o p ie d fo r th e n o n c o m m e rc ia l p u rp o se o f s c ie n tific o r e d u c a ­ tio n a l a d va n c e m e n t. 3 The experience of academic librarians in the public sector with respect to unit determination is not under the jurisdiction of the N LR B , but is rather governed by state law and/or boards. As such it is appropriately the subject of anoth­ er review and is beyond the intended scope of the essay. Readers are reminded that the scope of bargaining units can also be set by consent such that it is possible that librarians may not be in the unit with faculty by agreement be­ tween bargaining agent and employer. R e f e r e n c e s 1. C. W . Post Center of Long Island Univer­ sity 189 N L R B 9 06 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . 2. Fordham University 193 N L R B 139 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . 3. Ibid, 140, note 23. 4. For a review of the arguments see Ralph E . Kennedy, “The Educator’s Role in E du­ cating the N L R B ,” Journal o f C ollege and University Law (Sum mer 1 9 7 4 ), p .308-11. 5. Florida Southern College 196 N L R B 889 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . 6. Tusculum College 199 N L R B 31 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . 7. Catholic University 201 N LR B 145 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; New York University 2 0 5 N L R B 16 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; University of San Francisco 207 N L R B 15 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; Point Park College 2 0 9 N L R B 152 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; Fordham Univer­ sity 2 14 N L R B 37 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 21 8 N L R B 220 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . 8. Adelphi University 195 N L R B 639 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . 9. 2 05 N L R B 16 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . 10. Ibid. 11. University of Chicago Library 2 05 N LR B 44 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . 12. University of Chicago vs. N L R B (unpub­ lished order # 7 3 -1 7 8 8 , Case 13-CA- 1 1 4 4 7 ). 13. 198 N LR B 121 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . ■ ■ NELINET - ACRL/NEC Joint Meeting and Conference R eported by Jacqu elin e Seuss Acquisitions Librarian Boston C ollege Because of a common interest in developing simple cost measures for use in libraries, the membership of N E L IN E T and the membership of the ACRL-New England Chapter met to­ gether in a joint meeting and conference chaired by Gai Carpenter, N E L IN E T Execu­ tive Committee and director of the Harold F. Johnson Library Center, Hampshire College, at the New England Center for Continuing E d ­ ucation in Durham, New Hampshire, on F ri­ day, November 14, 1975. In the morning separate business meetings were held by each group. The business meet­ ing of the ACRL-New England Chapter will be reported separately in the February issue of C&R L News under “News from the Chapters.” Reporting to the N E L IN E T membership, Rob­ ert F . Miller, the director of N E L IN E T , high­ lighted recent activities in which N E L IN E T has been engaged, namely, further democratiz­ ing the governance system and accessing the impact of the recent O C L C rate increase. F u ­ ture activities to be given high priority, he stated, were (1) to resolve the future of the Northeast Academic Science Information Cen­ ter (N A S IC ), ( 2 ) to complete by December the National Agricultural Library project, and ( 3 ) to conclude negotiations with O CLC. Also reporting at the N E L IN E T business meeting was Frederick G. Kilgour, director of the Ohio College Library Center. Mr. Kilgour stated that the biggest problem facing O C LC was that of capitalization, explaining that funds for capital expenditure must now be provided by the users rather than the vendors. Using the Ohio experience by way of illustration, he esti­ mated that the recent rate increase amounted to only 13 percent while at the same time usage had increased 18 percent. After briefly summarizing the accomplishments of the O C LC system, he outlined expansion of service in 1976 into the areas of automated check-in, ac­ quisitions, interlibrary loan, and subject re­ trieval. Upon completion of the business meetings, the joint conference was opened by an address entitled “Library Cost Analysis: W hat W e Need to Know and W hy” by Sherrie S. B erg­ man, librarian, Wheaton College. Budget justi­ fication, Ms. Bergman pointed out, is one of the primary reasons for employing more sophisticat­ ed analyses, the traditional approach of circu­ lation figures, for example, often being inade­ quate and misleading. Almost any library op­ eration can be measured, she said, and the rela­ tionship between cost and production can be established. Ms. Bergman suggested that after the librarian has selected the specific areas of study, several basic principles o f cost analysis should be remembered: measurement almost always contains error and only a level of preci­ sion that is acceptable need be applied; the