•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In 2011, the introduction of Ohio Senate Bill 5 (SB5) attempted to drastically curtail public sector collective bargaining in Ohio. The bill included a proposed amendment designed by the Inter-University Council of Ohio, an organization of the top administrators of the state universities in Ohio, under the guise of applying the United States Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Yeshiva to faculty at Ohio’s public universities. The avowed intent of the proposed language was to classify all faculty as supervisors or managers and thereby make them ineligible to bargain collectively. After mounting opposition and grass roots efforts, SB5 was ultimately revoked by voter referendum. The general assumption was that if SB5 had gone into effect, faculty would be automatically classified as supervisors and/or managers and be excluded from collective bargaining. Thus, the only way to stop the elimination of faculty from being “Yeshiva’d” was to revoke SB5. This paper questions that assumption and analyzes several questions about the attempt to utilize the Yeshiva decision to re-classify all faculty as supervisors or managers that remained unanswered. Answers to these questions not only provide insight into future issues for higher education faculty in Ohio, but also in other states that attempt similar legislative maneuvering.

Share

COinS