Pratt Institute

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 971 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

PRATT INSTITUTE 971
Pratt Institute and United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America In-
ternational Union (UAW), Petitioner. Case 29–
RC–10016
August 8, 2003
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS WALSH
AND ACOSTA
On April 3, the Employer requested a stay of the hear-
ing in this case. The Regional Director denied the re-
quest. The Employer sought review. On April 11, 2003,
the Board granted an interim stay. Today, we grant a
stay, pending the Board’s decision in two cases currently
before the Board.1
We recognize that representation cases are to be proc-
essed and decided as quickly as possible. And, to that
end, we rarely grant a stay of hearing in such cases.2
Indeed, that rarity of stays bespeaks our strong belief in
the expeditious handling of representation cases.3
There are circumstances, however, where other policy
considerations outweigh the desire for expedition. In the
instant case, a hearing would be long and expensive.
That hearing may prove unnecessary. That is, if, in the
pending cases, the Board holds that graduate assistants
are not entitled to representation through NLRB proc-
esses, a hearing herein will be unnecessary. We will
have saved money and time, both for the U.S. taxpayer
and for the private parties. Accordingly, on balance, we
believe that it is prudent in this particular case to stay the
hearing until a decision is made as to the employee status
of graduate assistants.4
Further, even if the decisions in Brown and Columbia
uphold extant law or hold only that the graduate assis-
tants in those cases are not employees entitled to repre-
sentation through NLRB processes, those decisions
would at least give guidance to the parties herein. The
parties could therefore litigate with greater focus and
greater expedition. For this reason as well, we believe
that a stay is appropriate.
Finally, our colleague says that “only a small portion
of the petitioned-for unit consists of graduate assistants.”
He fails to say that the other portion of the unit consists

1 E.g., Brown University, Case 1–RC–21368, review granted March
22, 2002; Trustees of Columbia University, Case 2–RC–22358, review
granted March 22, 2002.
2 The Board’s records do not reflect whether, or how often, a stay of
hearing has been ordered.
3 Our colleague’s fear that we will stay a hearing every time there is
a possibility that governing law might be changed is sheer speculation
and is belied by history.
4 We wish to make it clear that our decision today does not fore-
shadow any particular disposition of Brown or Columbia.
of undergraduate assistants. The Columbia University
case also involves undergraduate assistants, and thus the
issue as to the status can be resolved in that case.
Based on all of the above, we grant the requested stay.

MEMBER WALSH, dissenting.
On April 11, 2003, I dissented from my colleagues’
Order granting the Employer’s request for an “interim”
stay of the hearing scheduled to commence that day.
Today, I must dissent again, this time from my col-
leagues’ Order granting the Employer’s “special” request
for an indefinite postponement of the hearing.
The Employer cites no precedent supporting its un-
usual request, and I know of none. This is not surprising
given that the policies of the Act “favor prompt comple-
tion of representation proceedings.” Versail Mfg., Inc.,
212 NLRB 592, 593 (1974). See NLRB Casehandling
Manual, Part Two, Representation Proceedings, Section
11000, “Agency Objective.” (“The expeditious process-
ing of petitions filed pursuant to the Act represents one
of the most significant aspects of the Agency’s opera-
tions. The processing and resolution of petitions raising
questions concerning representation . . . are to be ac-
corded the highest priority.”)
Although the Board is currently reconsidering New
York University, 332 NLRB 1205 (2000) (NYU), in sev-
eral pending cases,1 the fact remains that NYU is still the
law. While one may speculate whether, when, and how
that law may ultimately be changed, such speculation
provides no basis whatsoever for delaying the resolution
of the representation question raised by the filing of the
instant petition.2 If representation cases were stayed
every time there existed a possibility that the governing
law might be changed, the Agency’s commitment to
process them expeditiously would soon become a nullity.
Furthermore, in this case, the parties dispute whether
the Board’s reconsideration of NYU will necessarily be
dispositive of the unit issue presented here. The Re-
gional Director carefully considered the parties’ argu-
ments on this point and concluded as follows:

1 E.g., Brown University, Case 1–RC–21368, review granted March
22, 2002; Trustees of Columbia University, Case 2–RC–22358, review
granted March 22, 2002.
2 Delay in representation cases is especially prejudicial to the exer-
cise of employees’ statutory rights. As the Petitioner explains in its
May 19, 2003 letter to the Board, the “delay [to date] is particularly
troubling because of the discouraging message that it sends to employ-
ees regarding their ability to invoke the Board’s processes, and to have
their rights promptly adjudicated consistent with the language and
purposes of the Act. At the most fundamental level, if the Act is to
have any meaning, employees seeking union representation must be
able to count on a prompt response to their representation petitions.”
339 NLRB No. 126
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 972
I am dubious as to whether the future disposition of the
[pending Board cases] will be controlling here, since
only a small portion of the petitioned-for unit consists
of graduate assistants. The existing case law governing
the status of both graduate and undergraduate student
employees is fact-intensive, and future changes in the
law (if any) may not make it any more feasible to de-
cide the issues raised by the instant case without a hear-
ing fully developing the unique facts pertaining to
Pratt’s student employees. Although the Board’s [fu-
ture] decisions will offer some guidance with regard to
the status of graduate student employees, they are
unlikely to be dispositive of the instant case. Accord-
ingly, I have determined that the better course will be to
proceed with the processing of the above-captioned pe-
tition

My colleagues have not established a compelling rea-
son for overturning the Regional Director’s decision to
proceed to a hearing based on a showing that the Re-
gional Director’s decision is a departure from Board
precedent, or that it is clearly in error and that this error
prejudicially affects the rights of a party. And given that
the Regional Director’s decision is in accord with
Agency policy, they certainly have not shown an abuse
of discretion warranting the granting of what even the
Employer terms a “special” request for review.3
In sum, there is no dispute that the petition raises a
question concerning representation and that a hearing
must be held. The only issue is whether the hearing is to
be held promptly, in accordance with the Board’s historic
policy, or whether the hearing is to be delayed indefi-
nitely, in accordance with the Employer’s “special” re-
quest. In my view, to state the question is to answer it.

3 As the Employer implicitly acknowledges by describing its request
for review as “special,” there is no provision in the Board’s Rules and
Regulations expressly authorizing an appeal from a Regional Director’s
determination not to stay a hearing.