Source: cases/29usc158/f3d-918-126-univ-of-s-cal.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_918/0126_01/index.html
Put another way, the question the Board must ask is not a numerical one-does the subgroup seeking recognition comprise a majority of a committee-but rather a broader, structural one: has the university included the subgroup in a faculty body vested with managerial responsibilities?
We see nothing in the Board's two-part standard for "effective" control that runs afoul of Yeshiva .
But given our conclusion that the Board's subgroup majority status rule runs afoul of Yeshiva , and because we are uncertain whether the Board would have reached the same conclusion absent that rule, we think it best to leave these arguments unaddressed and to instead give the Board an opportunity to reconsider the case afresh under the proper legal standard.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/918/0126-01 name Univ. of S. Cal. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. cite 918 F.3d 126 (2019) court Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia date 2019-03-12 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_918/0126_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl sha1=8c4e95836db4874bfc9ea5b62f6782e1de76d2c7 chars=55606 opinion op : majority by Tatel @0..55606 controlling party p1 : University of Southern California count c1 : bargaining unit certification (Roski School non-tenure-track faculty) law 29usc158 role rule-announced posture petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of an NLRB order finding a (technical, admitted) § 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain, brought to test the certification of a non-tenure-track faculty unit; petition granted in part, enforcement denied, remanded for the Board to redetermine managerial status under the correct reading of Yeshiva result remanded element covered-employee : not-reached party p1 count c1 route _whole pattern managerial-employee exclusion of a university faculty subgroup (non-tenure-track faculty holding a minority of seats on governance committees) fact @23966..24137 [neutral] | Though non-tenure-track faculty are eligible to join any committee and make up about three-fourths of the USC faculty, they represent a minority on almost every committee. rule @38863..39145 | Put another way, the question the Board must ask is not a numerical one-does the subgroup seeking recognition comprise a majority of a committee-but rather a broader, structural one: has the university included the subgroup in a faculty body vested with managerial responsibilities? rule @49220..49320 | We see nothing in the Board's two-part standard for "effective" control that runs afoul of Yeshiva . held @54522..54883 | But given our conclusion that the Board's subgroup majority status rule runs afoul of Yeshiva , and because we are uncertain whether the Board would have reached the same conclusion absent that rule, we think it best to leave these arguments unaddressed and to instead give the Board an opportunity to reconsider the case afresh under the proper legal standard. gloss The court fixes the test for when a faculty subgroup is "managerial" (and so outside the Act's coverage): the Board's subgroup majority status rule conflicts with Yeshiva, its "effective control" standard does not. It does not decide whether the Roski non-tenure-track faculty are covered employees; that goes back to the Board. gloss The refusal to bargain itself was admitted by USC as the vehicle for testing the certification; the court makes no § 8(a)(5) merits ruling and no block is recorded for it.