Case Title: Vermont State Colleges Faculty Federation v. Vermont State Colleges

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91-293

                               MAY TERM, 1992


 Vermont State Colleges Faculty    }          APPEALED FROM:
 Federation, AFT Local 3180,       }
 AFT, AFL-CIO                      }
                                   }          Labor Relations Board
      v.                           }
                                   }
                                   }
 Vermont State Colleges            }          DOCKET NO. 91-9


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:


      The Vermont State Colleges (VSC) appeal a decision of the Vermont
 Labor Relations Board approving a bargaining unit of adjunct faculty
 members employed by VSC.  We agree with the Board's conclusion that the
 bargaining unit is appropriate under the State Employees Labor Relations Act
 (SELRA), 3 V.S.A. {{ 901-1007, and affirm.

      The Vermont State Colleges Faculty Federation, Local 3180, AFT, AFL-CIO
 (Federation) filed a Petition for Election of Collective Bargaining Repre-
 sentative with the Board seeking an election among the adjunct faculty
 employed by VSC.  The Board granted the petition, and the adjunct faculty
 voted to be represented by the Federation.  The Federation currently
 represents the full-time faculty of VSC and sought to represent the adjunct
 faculty in a separate bargaining unit. (FN1) VSC, relying on our holding in
 Vermont State Colleges Faculty Federation v. Vermont State Colleges, 152 Vt.
 343, 351, 566 A.2d 955, 959 (1989) (the interests of the full-time faculty
 and the adjunct faculty are so divergent that the two groups could not be
 represented in the same bargaining unit), objected to the proposed unit
 complaining that the Federation could not represent both full-time and
 adjunct faculty because of a potential conflict of interest that would
 jeopardize the bargaining process.   In the alternative, VSC objected to the
 inclusion of those adjunct faculty members who were not employed at the time
 of the vote.  The Board concluded that no meaningful potential for a con-
 flict of interest existed and approved the unit.

      Before addressing VSC's arguments, we note that the Board's conclusions
 are entitled to great deference.  Id. at 350, 566 A.2d  at 959 (unit
 determinations are within the expertise of the Board and are presumed to be
 correct, valid and reasonable, with a clear and convincing showing required
 to overcome the presumption of validity).  Additionally, a bargaining unit
 approved by the Board "need not be the most appropriate unit, only an
 appropriate unit."  Id. (emphasis in original).  VSC has failed to make the
 requisite showing in the instant case.

      The principle that employees have the right to freely choose their
 bargaining representative is firmly rooted in labor law and is recognized in
 Vermont under SELRA.  3 V.S.A. { 903(a) ("Employees shall have the right
 . . . to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice
 . . . .").  The exceptions to this general rule are narrow and infrequently
 invoked.  See General Electric Co. v. N.L.R.B., 412 F.2d 512, 517 (2d Cir.
 1969).  While a conflict of interest that makes "good faith bargaining
 impractical" may disqualify a bargaining representative, the employer has
 the burden of showing a "clear and present danger" to the collective
 bargaining process.  Id.  VSC contends that such a conflict of interest
 exists between the full-time faculty and the adjunct faculty because the two
 groups will present conflicting demands during contract negotiations, and
 the Federation will not be capable of representing both groups in good
 faith.  VSC also argues that the positions of some full-time faculty members
 as Federation officers will frustrate the processing of adjunct grievances.
 We find that such concerns have been adequately addressed by placing the
 adjuncts and the full-time faculty in separate bargaining units.

      The Board held that the potential for conflicts of interest between the
 two groups "does not exist in any meaningful way," and this conclusion is
 supported by federal case law.  The conflicts asserted here do not rise to
 the level of conflicts that have disqualified bargaining representatives.
 See Medical Foundation of Belair, 193 N.L.R.B. 62, 64 (1971) (union cannot
 represent employees of an employer that receives income from a welfare fund
 operated by the union); General Teamsters Local 249, 139 N.L.R.B. 605, 606-
 07 (1962) (union cannot represent the employees of a sister union within the
 same international or parent body); Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 108 N.L.R.B.
 1555, 1562 (1955) (union cannot represent the employees of an employer with
 which the union is in direct competition).  These cases involve conflicts
 between the union and the employer, not conflicts between employee units
 within the union as asserted here.  Conflicts among union members are
 inevitable, and the existence of such conflicts does not disqualify a
 bargaining representative.  Merk v. Jewel Co., 848 F.2d 761, 764 (7th Cir.
 1988) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman,