Universidad Central De Bayamon v. National Labor Relations Board, and Union De Profesores Universitarios, Intervenor

COFFIN, and TOR- Before ALDRICH RUELLA, Judges. Circuit COFFIN, Judge. Circuit Bayamon peti- de Universidad Central Rela- of a National Labor tions review Coffin, Judge, opinion filed an Circuit finding violations tions decision Bownes, Bailey Judge Circuit and re- the National Labor Relations Act Aldrich, Judge, joined. Senior Circuit into collec- quiring enter Judge opinion Breyer, En banc Circuit bargaining with the union elected tive teachers the Univer- represent full-time that, sity. contends be- is an the control cause it institution under order, NLRB produce entanglement be- excessive religion in government and violation tween First free exercise Amendment’s The Board cross- establishment clauses. order, petitions for enforcement election, Universitarios, the Union de Profesores aIn ballot the vote of the facul- Board, party ty representation before the 41 to charging inter- was 9 in favor of below, the For stated we find Union and the Union venes. reasons was certified on jurisdic- February Standing by properly that the Board asserted 1980. its belief that had University jur- improperly and the Board tion over the that such asserted jurisdiction, University refused to bar- isdiction does not violate First Amend- gain May July with the Union. and ment. University promulgated hew re- quirements regarding faculty credentials I. FACTS notifying bargaining without with the Bayamon The de Universidad Central is a professors discharged Union. Six were university private, nonprofit governed by a May professors discharged and two were Trustees, majority Board of whom July failing require- to meet the new must be and are members of the Dominican the University’s ments. Because of refusal University Order. The describes itself as a bargain, University Union struck the institution,” “Catholic-oriented civil in September but returned to work objective providing its has as “that unconditionally in November 1980. Fifteen humanistic education аt an academic level.” striking employees were not reinstated University’s The full-time includes University. approximately lay teachers and or 5 brought The practices Union unfair labor priests. requirement There no that the proceedings in complaining 1980 and faith, lay faculty be the Catholic al- University’s bargain, refusal its though most are Catholic. The changes employment unilateral condi- “welcomes students of all denominations tions, its failure to and reinstate the strik- and faiths”. Hearings ers. were held before an admin- On October the Union de Profe- judge in istrative law March 1982 and (the “Union”) sores Universitarios filed a March 1983. The AU found the Universi- petition Board, representation with the ty any not had adduced new evidence con- seeking bargaining rep- certification as the cerning its character that would person- teaching resentative all full-time justify overturning Regional Director’s nel University op- The regarding the jurisdiction decision Board’s posed petition, grounds part on the impermissible entanglement no that be- of jurisdiction the Board’s assertion government religion tween would oc- impermissible would constitute an entan- cur jurisdiction.1 as the result such government glement religion. panel December a three member Regional The Board’s Director rejected the finding NLRB affirmed AU’s University’s position, finding that the Uni- jurisdiction over the proper was “ versity’s providing aim ‘humanistic its because “academic mission is secular”.2 ” education at an academic level’ “en- was The Board ordered the to bar- tirely University’s request secular.” The' gain collectively upon with the re- Union Regional for review of the Director’s deci- quest, changes to rescind the unilateral raising Union, sion denied upon request was and to offer “no warrаnting employees discharged substantial issues review.” those or denied rein- ALJ pays did conclude that the was admissions committee and hires and for its bargain not ing any with the Union concern- professors. own The ALJ exer- found relating terms conditions jurisdiction cise of NLRB CEDOC be over would Center for Dominican ("CEDOC"). in the Studies Carribbean improper pervasively religious because of the two-year CEDOC a course of program. character of the leading study Divinity degree ato Master of Theology. primary objective pro- panel 2. The also affirmed that gram is the formation of candidates for the proper. CEDOC board, priesthood. CEDOChas own its own clause, apply reinstate- establishment immediate full and statement three-part set out test positions. former to their ment (1) the statute must have a secular Court: AMENDMENT CLAIM FIRST (2) II. primary the statute’s effect purpose; religion; must neither advance nor inhibit the Su- University contends (3) statute must not foster exces- in NLRB v. Catholic Court decision preme government entanglement with reli- sive 490, Chicago, 440 U.S. 99 S.Ct. Bishop of Kurtzman, 602, 403 gion. Lemon v. U.S. (1979), requires us to 533 59 L.Ed.2d 612-13, 2105, 2111, 91 S.Ct. jurisdiction over NLRB has no find that the (1971). institution such as religiously affiliated Bishop, the In Catholic that NLRB There is no doubt this case held that the exercise Supreme Court requirements meets the of hav- jurisdiction in two lay teachers jurisdiction NLRB purpose and effect.3 In de- ing a secular present- parochial schools Roman Catholic the stan- termining whether it also meets infringing the “significant risk” of entangle- ed a fostering excessive dard of not First Amend- clause of the religion, establishment government and ment between therefore, affirmative however, absent an ment and at related we must look several would not Congress, the Court purpose intention of character аnd of the factors: affected, Act Labor Relations of the interpret the National the nature activ- institution govern- 440 U.S. at conferring jurisdiction. engaged in mandated ity such or ment, resulting relationship The Universi- 501-09, at 1319-23. and the be- 99 S.Ct. religious orga- allowing jurisdiction government NLRB and the tween ty argues that Kurtzman, university 403 at nization. Lemon v. U.S. religiously affiliated over a violating 2112. both 91 S.Ct. at a similar risk would create free exercise clauses the establishment Institution 1. Nature find Because we First Amendment. religious nature of that the Supreme Court Bishop, In Catholic from that of significantly different entanglement by significant risk of found a issue in secondary schools at Catholic pur- nature and focusing primarily on the find that Bishop, and because we affected. Accord- of the institutions pose University will with the NLRB involvement Court, holding in Catholic ing to the ways, we important circumscribed on the “critical and premised Bishop was over the jurisdiction that NLRB fulfilling conclude unique of the teacher role significant risk not create a University will 440 church-operated school”. mission of a or free violating either the establishment at 1319. at 99 S.Ct. U.S. decline to We therefore exercise clause. schools noted that the Court holding of Catholic extend issue in similar to those at Bishop were case, and hold that cases, in this Kurtzman; in both Lemon v. “[r]eli- authority assumed on jurisdiction pervades the necessarily gious authority Act is Labor Relations the National at 99 S.Ct. system”. U.S. school proper. Kurtzman, 403 (quoting Lemon v. at 2105, 2113, U.S. Clause A. Establishment and its Lemon played by teachers progeny, “key role” application determine whether To secondary elementary and the Uni- Act to Labor Relations National predicate for was “the Court’s] of violat- significant [the risk versity presents a 615, 626-27, (1937). And the L.Ed. 893 purpose "The has noted: As the Ninth Circuit 3. require bar- primary collective clearly effect is to Act’s Relations Act is Labor of the National disruptions, rather burdening gaining labor and reduce industrial strife secular —to minimize acceptance of the promote deter employees’ by protecting than to commerce interstate Community Hospi- St. bargain collectively. Catholic faith.” Elizabeth rights organize and Cir.1983). (9th NLRB, 1, 42-43, Laughlin, tal v. U.S. Jones & NLRB v. governmental government funds, conclusions” aid to such infra, n. see the Uni- impermissible entangle- schools creates an versity financially been has self sufficient. government religion. ment between Although the University offers masses Bishop, 440 U.S. at at adjoining a church campus, attend- Bishop, Court optional. ance students is one re- found that over faculty- quired course, theology Analysis of Biblical relationships per- administration in schools History Literature, taught by both meated with a mission would sim- lay faculty and focuses ilarly create a entangle- risk of literary analysis historical and of Biblical ment. Catholic 502- texts. The required teachers are not at 1319-20. specified religious follow a analysis. The Bayamon University The Central differs three philosophy ethics, courses— significantly from schools at logic, philosophy and the of man—cover a in Bishop. issue There is no thinkers, variety religious wide of including that University doubt religiously is a and atheist writers. religion affiliated school and that is a facet of the school’s University existence. The do, Painting, as we are a was founded Order Dominican in “general picture institution, of the com- incorporated 1961 and was non-profit as a posed elements”, many of Roemer association 1964 three Dominican Maryland, Board Public Works 426 of priests. University governed is by a 736, 758, 2337, 2350, U.S. 96 S.Ct. 49 Trustees, Board of the majority of whom (1976), L.Ed.2d find 179 we that the Univer- must and be are members of the Dominican sity picture meets an “institution Order. The University, President admittedly religious with functions but who powers authority, has broad and sim- predominant higher whose mis- education ilarly must be a member of the Dominican provide sion is to their students with The University Order. defines itself in its Richardson, secular education”. Tilton v. bylaws and school bulletin as a “Catholic- 672, 687, 403 U.S. 91 29 S.Ct. institution, requires oriented” its students mandatory theolo- to take one theology course in and three in gy philosophy “only supple- and courses philosophy, regular and it offers masses in covering spectrum ment a curriculum ‘the ” adjoining campus. church program’ taught of a arts and liberal atmosphere “in an of intellectual freedom”.

Despite however, these aspects, Roemer, 755-57, 426 at U.S. at University’s religious sig- character is purpose” 2349-50. The “central fac- nificantly less dominant than that of reli- ulty “the is not inculcation of gious elementary schools. body, values” in Cuesnongle the student The University defines its objective as the Ramos, (1st Cir.1983) provision of a “humanistic education at an (finding University Bayamon Central academic level” and has an open admis- pervasively parochi- less than a policy, recruiting applicants sions of all school), al provide high is rather to but Hiring faculty personnel creeds. Thus, quality academic education. made ability experience; on basis of other religiously affiliated ana- universities University bylaws require only appli- that Court, lyzed Roemer, see “possess appropriate cants academic 755-59, 2349-51; 426 U.S. at 96 S.Ct. at degrees, be of a sound moral character and McNair, 734, 743-44, Hunt v. 413 U.S. pedagogical qualities”. show traits of (1973); S.Ct. require does any religious nоt Tilton, 685-89, 403 U.S. at at part lay observance its 2099-2101, “religious we find that indoctri- guarantees full them academic free- purpose nation is activ- not substantial dom. Since apart receiving from Tilton, ity” of the secular, U.S. at sectarian, more rather than university.5 at 2100.4 the Dominican Order con- The fact precisely We also note that it is because majority University’s trols a similar in character to the change analysis. our of Trustees does Tilton, Roemer, and Hunt colleges in Tilton, 686-87, at 91 S.Ct. at governmental it is able to receive aid.6 Al- 2099-2100, colleges the four were admitted- though eligi- fact that the religious organiza- ly governed by Catholic dispositive ble for federal aid is not Hunt, tions, 743-44, at U.S. Bishop inquiry, see infra p. college wholly was con- at analysis it to the is relevant the institu- Baptist Con- trolled South Carolina Indeed, religious nature. tion’s the Su- also, Roemer, vention. U.S. preme Court referred 2350-51, 758-59, n. 96 S.Ct. at n. analysis aid-to-school cases (even religious organization wholly where entanglement the risk of that could ensue college, college may still be controls a religious parochial between the sectarian”). “pervasively to be found not government. Thus, although difficulty little we have 501-04, 99 S.Ct. at 1319-20. by the Arch- accepting that the statement record, bishop was of San Juan Based on our review of the university” merely re- ruling “not a Catholic affirm our earlier the Universi- distinctly religious power struggle ty a between the Do- is different from a flected school. Cuesnon- secondary hierarchy elementary the or minican Order and Catholic Ramos, gle 881, (1st University, do not 713 F.2d Cir. control of the we 1983). religious per- A mission does not overwhelming impor- find the issue to be of University system, entire with vade the accepting that the Dominican tance. Even key in the trans- playing teachers role Order, clearly religious organization, con- particular religious mission of a faith University, “gen- find that the trols the we Thus, body. very premise the student picture” University the remains one eral The excluded evidence ultimate conclusion. religiously affiliated col- 4. The characteristics of prove University to that the was was offered strong leges such as the stand institution, subject to the indeed a "Catholic" elementary secondary contrast to those of and religious organization. supervision But the of a Supreme schools. The " Court has noted that simply factor in the issue of control is one policy’ affirmative if not dominant of the *[t]he entanglement. analysis impermissible In- pre-college church schools is ‘to instruction in deed, assump- we reach our conclusion on the particular future adherents to a faith assure religious organization it the that some tion having control of their total education at an —be 686-87, Church —does Tilton, Order or the Catholic Dominican early age’”. U.S. at 91 S.Ct. is, therefore, University. Commission, This case control the (quoting at v. Tax 2099-2100 Walz quite Security 664, 671, 1409, 1412, Burns Electronic different from 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. NLRB, Services, (2d Cir. Inc. v. 624 F.2d 403 (1970)). “parochial These Burns, 1980), by petitioner. the relied on activity religious pur- and involve substantial 616, 2113, circumstances” merit- Lemon, court found that "unusual pose”, 403 U.S. at 91 S.Ct. the ALJ should have ed the conclusion propa- the and indeed their "raison d'etre ... is prac- accepted Lemon, new evidence at the unfair labor gation 403 U.S. at faith”. proceeding. included 628, J., tices These circumstances concurring) (Douglas, 91 S.Ct. at 2118 disposi- requested evidence was the fact that the in the unit certification tive of a critical issue commit We also find that the ALJ did not 5. original compiled question at the and thе record evi- when he excluded some reversible error hearing clearly representation deficient. was designation regarding the official of the dence Burns, 624 F.2d at 408-10. institution, subject to as a "Catholic” First, supervision Holy of the See. the ALJ 1978, University received 1977 to 6. From reopen hearing specifically to hear evi- did $5,042,298, totaling grants various federal relationship regarding between dence $350,000 was direct aid to which hierarchy, only and the Catholic 1983, University received documents, From 1980 to $3,750,000 during offered certain additional seventy-five per- grants, Second, in federal hearing, excluded. even if all were $425,000 of admitted, was student aid and cent of which requested we evidence had been was direct institutional assistance. changed the do not see how it would have Bishop Components, tron which Electrical 24, was based —that (1st Cir.1977) entanglement (Board only proceed risk existed be- can unique played by charge employer of the role teachers when filed cause named conspicuously respondent). filing schools —is ab- After the of a com- plaint, here. therefore decline to extend authority sent We the Board does have broad of holding complete investigation. to the Uni- make a full and Co., Milling the Universi- NLRB Fant versity simply on the basis Further, ty’s character. do 79 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1959). jurisdiction subsequently But the Board does not have carte not find that the blanche impermissible wills; expand charge conferred would create as it it “ entanglement government ‘practices and re- between limited which are related ligion University’s religious alleged charge of the because those in the and which Id., quoting grow nature. out of them’ ”. Nation- NLRB, al Licorice Co. v. Activity 2. Nature NLRB 84 L.Ed. 799 The fact that the is not identi- activity part This on the not, pаrochial however, does cal to school quite different from continuous audit- above, inquiry. end our As we noted ing surveillance feared governmental activity engenders whether Lemon, Court 403 U.S. at entanglement religion is excessive (“A comprehensive, at 2114. discrimina- elements; apart result several related ting, continuing state will surveillance purpose from character and insti- inevitably to ensure that these affected, we look at tution also the nature [government] obeyed restrictions are engaged activity in mandated the First Amendment otherwise respect- government, resulting and the relation- ed.”) This restricted involvement of a la- ship government recognized bor board has been other Lemon, organization. U.S. at High In School Ass’n v. courts. the Culvert, the Second Circuit held that New of pervasively nature the schools was so jurisdiction York board State labor over religious easily that the Court found a parochial schools would not create strong entanglement. likelihood It entanglement excessive reli- between the however, possible, partial- only that even in gious government. Among schools and the institutions, ly sectarian risk factors, other the court noted that “the entanglement govern- could if exist supervision State Board’s collec- activity mental involved was such that it bargaining process compre- tive is neither directly particular religious affected continuing”. hensive nor F.2d conclude, facets the institution. We (2nd Circuit, Cir.1985). in The Ninth however, NLRB with that involvement holding jurisdiction that the NLRB had University not be the kind that would religiously hospital, over a ex- affiliated impermissible entangle- would create an plained pro- that “Board will government religion. ment duce only requiring ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍incidental intrusion First, hospital’s] the Bоard will become involved examination of actions [the University only point only respect with the at the specific conduct with to practice charge charges may an unfair is filed. be in the labor filed limited NLRB, Radio Union v. bargaining area of collective labor rela- Officers’ Community Hospi- (1954) St. Elizabeth L.Ed. tions”. NLRB, (without charge, (9th tal v. Board has no author- NLRB v. Vemi- complaint); Cir.1983).7 ity to issue a analyzing Opportunity engage application cases Title VII ment Commission in a institutions, religious similarly wide-ranging investigation college’s hiring courts have authority Employ practice "on-going Equal found that the does not result in interfer Second, completely practic- unfair labor it has lost the shield of the many First presented to the Board will that will be es Newspaper Amendment. See Guild v. example, in the entirely secular. For be NLRB, (D.C.Cir.1980) (al- 636 F.2d 550 us, is no assertion case before there though newspaper not immune from promulgation that the new jurisdiction merely NLRB it is because an requirements or the denial of re- academic agency press, certain of its activities was motivated for the strikers instatement legitimately within zone of First Similarly, any religious considerations. protection pro- Amendment and must be University’s list of the various among the orders). tected in NLRB impli- could union demands that potential lists a number of union demands that could concerns, there are a number religious cate potentially University’s interfere with the legit- sufficiently secular to be that are religious admittedly quite facets.9 We take bargaining, any with subject of union imate seriously University’s concern that cer- religious taken into relevant considerations potentially tain union demands could inter- example, the necessary. For account when religious fere with its charаcter. We ex- bargain for contract could indeed union layoffs however, of clerical requiring pect, the NLRB provisions will also implemented some lay be seriously consider these claims and will en- bargain seniority order or could form of a shaped sure that its orders are so as to requiring that course contract rules for pass example, constitutional muster. For assignments made on the basis of facul- be University’s ap- one of the main concerns govern seniority to ty preference, with pears to revolve around limitations on its preferences. The competing the event discharge faculty freedom part, maintaining University, on its however, clear, reasons. The law is bargain- mandatory subjects of position on discharge part protected even a based any ing, be free to take into account activity union will not be considered an may it have. NLRB religious concerns practice employer labor if the unfair can Army Massachusetts Dor- v. Salvation show that the individual would have been Center, F.2d 8 & Day chester Care discharged any event for a non-union Cir.1985).8 (1st n. 9 Transportation reason. NLRB bargain- in case where a union Finally, 393, 103 Management Corp., 462 U.S. truly a Board order would demand or reason Such a University’s interfere with certainly one based on could freedom, is free to refuse Thus, considerations. comply bargain with the union or to engaged in has find that order, us. position and to test its before practice University if the unfair labor religious University’s the The fact that discharged employee for shows it has to insulate it character is not sufficient religious High reasons. not mean that See Catholic jurisdiction Board does from affecting faculty college’s religious praсtices.” its will be exclu- ment issues the ence with 477, College, sively Mississippi primarily 626 F.2d 488 v. or secular. EEOC 912, denied, (5th Cir.1980), U.S. 101 cert. 3143, (1981). The Fifth 69 L.Ed.2d Examples potential of union demands include: 9. regarding a col conclusion Circuit came to this faculty regulation subjecting the elimination of "provide college purpose lege was to a whose "personal behavior" teachers to dismissal atmosphere with in an saturated education standards, University such as inconsistent ideals," whose character was Christian and procuring urging procurement or the of an the by "pervasively the to be sectarian.” found court abortion; defining the “offenses to Christian 479, Id. at 487. rescinded; morality" may be for which tenure "right” have the demands that members Although nature of the we have discussed the 8. urge, publish, views critical and disseminate separate University’s religious section, in a character doctrine; biology that of Catholic and demands largely is due is to note that it it useful “right” cre- have the to refuse teach teachers University pervasive- not a is to the fact that ly theory. ation many employ- institution that sectarian Culvert, beliefs; (3) 753 F.2d 1168- Ass’n v. den on School the extent exemption to which an from the statute impede objective sought to be determining whether Both in the Univer- by Lee, advanced the statute. v. U.S. engaged prac- unfair sity has in an labor 252, 257-59, 1051, 1055-56, U.S. 102 S.Ct. order, tice, a fashioning remedial see (1982); Yoder, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 v. Wisconsin NLRB, v. F.2d Daily News Passaic 205, 220-21, 1526, 1535- (D.C.Cir.1984)(court 1556-59 ordered (1972); EEOC v. Missis- remedy to accommodate Board tailored (5th sippi College, 626 F.2d Cir. rights), the newspaper’s First Amendment 1980). constitutionally required Board to consid- is legit- University’s er and accommodate the Allowing jurisdiction NLRB over the rights. any in- imate First Amendment University effect, only would have a limited stance in which the feels the on any, University’s if direct exercise failed, Board has and that First Amend- of its beliefs. The violated, rights been we ment have indeed does claim that Catholic doctrine for- ready to hear that claim. stand bargaining bids collective requires it to engage in practices. unfair labor See St. Thus, given jurisdic- the form NLRB Community NLRB, Hospital Elizabeth University, tion safe- (9th Cir.1983). 1442-43 involvement, guards accompany jurisdic- is no There evidence that NLRB we do not find that risk of required tion meets having standard government entanglement between and re- practice “coercive effect” of reli- ligion type occur as result of will this gion part on the any governmental reli- members involvement with a giously Abington affiliated institution. Jurisdiction School District Schempp, may therefore be assumed under the Na- v. 374 U.S. Act, (1963). juris-

tional Labor Relations such L.Ed.2d diction is constitutional. however, concerned, is that its freedom could be “chilled” B. Free Exercise Claim very because existence Board University argues allowing quite possibly This review. concern ov- signifi- Board would create a because, errated as dis- cant of violating risk the free exercise above, cussed to be According clause of First Amendment. sensitive to and to accommodate Uni- University, this violation would occur However, versity’s religious concerns. immediate, through symbolic invasion jurisdiction may the extent that NLRB cre- through autonomy, church Board deci- ate an incidental on religion, burden impede will University’s sions that free it justified compelling find that religion, through “chill- exercise compelling state interest. There is a ing effect” that will result from the Univer- government in minimizing interest econom- sity’s knowledge religiously motivated disruptions ic caused labor unrest. subject will be decisions review Laughlin Corp., NLRB Jones & Steel Board. 1, 42, 81 L.Ed. statutory To clearly determine whether enact- 893 This interest extends to clause, jurisdic- ment would violate the free exercise In affirming universities. Board (1) private, nonprofit the Court has examined: the tion over in- educational stitutions, actually which a statute in extent to burdens we concurred the Board’s rec- belief, of a Tony ognition exercise that “universities affect commerce did, Secretary they Susan Alamo v. than being Foundation more once now more Labor, 290, private activity, 471 U.S. 105 involved commercial S.Ct. (1985); (2) receiving support”. the existence of a extensive federal compelling Institute, justify state interest to the bur- v. NLRB Wentworth

391 Cir.1975). 550, (1st Thus, if we cannot 554 even find that the inclusion of those priests had has an incidental effect an effect on the election jurisdiction Board out- The religion, come. is free to seek on the exercise of this minimal a unit clarification, pursuant justified by compel- to 29 C.F.R. intrusion is state’s 102.- § (b), or may bargain 60 refuse to over bargaining. in collective ling interest See rights of Culvert, employees the contested so Ass’n as to High School v. bring (2nd particular question that 1161, Cir.1985)(minimal before 753 1171 F.2d court. Bulletin, Union “chilling” Walla-Walla justi- caused effect intrusion 631 F.2d at 615. by New York State’s interest in collec- fied bargaining). tive IV. Conclusion of Dominican III. Inclusion Priests jurisdiction Board’s over the reli- Bargaining Unit giously Bayamon affiliated Central Univer- sity does not create a risk of University contends that the Board violating the establishment or free ex- included four or improperly five Dominican ercise clauses of the First Amendment. priests unit of “all full-time Jurisdiction over is there- University urges members”. fore properly assumed under the National “community priests of interest” have Labor Relations Act. employer diverge with from their employees, those of othеr and that inclu- petition The University’s review is for priests bargaining sion in the unit denied and the Board’s order is enforced. loyal- to a subject them “conflict of TORRUELLA, (dissent- Judge Circuit that, cases, ties”. It notes similar ing). members Board has excluded bargaining order from a unit. Carroll Although majority’s well-reasoned Home, Nursing 202 N.L.R.B. Manor opinion my highest respect, commands I (1973); College, Hill 201 N.L.R.B. Seton because, compelled am to my to dissent (1973). view, is contrary it to the strict mandates explicit of the First Amendment1 and the whether, having not decide We need implicit holdings of N.L.R.B. v. Catho- objection representation in the raised this Bishop Chicago, lic proceeding, University may it raise 59 L.Ed.2d now, priests actually or whether have a community with of interest Bishop I. N.L.R.B. Catholic Chica- distinct from that of em that is the other go employer ployees. An cannot avoid an obli gation respect bargain Bishop to an entire the Court was faced employees by arguing jurisdiction by unit of that some with exercise of included, improperly employees lay were un Board over teachers in certain high operated employ inclusion of the less the contested the Catholic Church. Up ees the unit’s majority per- would affect status. time the Board standards assumption v. mitted the See Walla Walla Union-Bulletin (9th Cir.1980); if NLRB, religiously sponsored organizations F.2d 614-15 they associated, merely religiously were Aged Glen Manor Home Jewish com- (6th Cir.), NLRB, pared, they completely were F.2d cert. where reli- denied, nature, gious in which case the (1973). Here, that, jurisdiction. it appears declined most, priests jurisdiction principally were in the unit. the Board five included assumed 41-9, ground high the union won vote of schools in Because thereof____” U.S.Const., "Congress prohibiting Amend. 1: shall make the free exercise respecting religion, no law an establishment of Rico, question, providing a University addition Roman of Puerto which has its education, provided campus oriented also a main Ponce. One of main Catholic its was, objectives is, and the philosophical secular education and thus were traditional preparation of religious” students. “completely schools. Catho- Bishop, 440 at 494 n. 99 S.Ct. at lic Regional In the Vicar of the Do- rejected n. 7. the The Court Board’s minican other Order two Dominican high the exercise of priests incorporated Universidad de Central schools, basing decision statutory on Bayamón non-profit aas association and grounds clear of giving but indication the campus transferred the to the Dominican questions serious constitutional at issue. Bayamón. through Convent in Thereafter supra, Catholic 99 S.Ct. at buildings by several were constructed 1320. grounds, the Order the Convent’s for University. use the Initially, in what I the context of am discuss, I key about to believe the 1970, by In dispute reason of an internal phrase used the Court in Catholic Bish- between Order the the Church’s local op “church-operated is See 440 school.” hierarchy toas who would control the Uni- 501-504, U.S. at 99 S.Ct. at 1319-20. See versity, separated University the from Bishop also N.L.R.B. v. Ford Central University Catholic of In Puerto Rico. School, High agreement 1980 an was reached between (2d Cir.1980)(“[t]he Bishop Court the Master General of the Order and the employed operated’ the term ‘church not in Juan,2 of Archbishop San which acknowl- upon by the restricted sense now seized the edged pastoral connection Board, but rather as a convenient method University and the Archdiocese San of characterizing of with a schools Juan, but reserved to the Dominican Order mission.”). It of is the existence such an relating all matters to the orienta- brings play poten- institution into tion, philosophy, educational and internal prohibited by Religion tial for conflict discipline University. of the question Clauses. There should be no but University top is at the of inte- (Uni- Bayamón Universidad Central de grated system, Catholic school owned “church-operated is a versity) school.” To operated by the Dominican Order. As quote from majority opinion: such, operates owns two ... There is doubt no that the Univer- elementary and schools. Those is sity religiously affiliated school and governed by schools are the Board of religion facet of the school’s University. Trustees The President existence. University, also Regional who is Order, Op. more, Vicar at 909. The record shows a lot of the Dominican their principals Chief Executive however. Officer. report directly to the Vice Pres- creation Do- ident of the Order, recognized minican and is Congregation for Sacred Catholic Edu- began operating institution, cation as a Dominican affiliated a seminary called the Center Dominican (CEDOC). Church. When founded Studies in the Caribbean Order, in 1961 it was in fact the 1982 the restructured CEDOC’s Metropolitan Campus program San provide years study Juan for two "Agreement Catholicity propriate organism Relation that could exercise self- FAITH, Bayamón.” Among reglamentation the Universidad Central de the areas MOR- things, agreement provides: other AL and DISCIPLINE. oversee, right In the exercise of his ARTICLE 5: THE UNIVERSIDAD CENTRAL right upon will call authorities hereby agrees, DE BAYAMON the re- under Bayamón. the Universidad Central de Should sponsibility of General Master the Do- dissatisfied, Order, upon he be he then will call minican to create and maintain within structure, ap- General Master the Dominican Ordеr. some its internal effective degree theology. ented civil institution.” The bulletin dis- leading to a master’s any qualified stu- indicates that the program open is tributed students Uni- The dent, religious, primary objec- versity lay or but is a “liberal arts institution denom- of candidates for preparation inationally affiliated tive is Roman Cath- physically Church, Order,” The CEDOC is both priesthood. olic and the Dominican and University. academically part of the preeminently that “B.C.U. is a Catholic ori- Yet, jurisdic- declined to exercise the Board university.” ented It also advises students perva- “because of the tion over CEDOC “[r]egular daily masses are held program.” sively religious character of the Catholic Church of the Dominican Order n. I.3 At 908 adjoining campus.” University governed self-per- is The students, regardless All of their course Trustees, majority of petuating Board of study, are to take at least three must be and are members of whom theology phi- credits of and nine credits of include the Re- Dominican Order. These losophy degree. in order to receive a The Order, the Prior of the gional Vicar of the required theology normally courses are Lady of the Dominican Convent Our taught by priests suggested and the text of the Universi- Rosary, and the President prepared by priest. was a Dominican The of the Univer- ty. The executive committee theology philosophy taught courses are University sity, which runs the view, point from a Catholic and their Board, composed meetings of the is of five formative, purpose simply rather than members, majority of which must be informative. Dominican Order. members of the faculty Most of the members are Roman composed The of trustees is of ten board All apprised respon- Catholics. are of their members, are members of the six of whom sibility philosophy to adhere to the Catholic Ro- and all of whom are Dominican Order philosophy ap- of the institution. That Vicar, Regional Father man Catholics. The plied hiring faculty in the selection and Rooij, has been President of the Uni- Van hiring members. fact the contract re- versity Secretary of its board of trust- know, quires faculty respect members “[t]o ees since 1970. philosophy.” uphold University’s Regulations Faculty The state that it “shall president The must put practice at all times into Universi- [the of the Dominican Order. He a member philosophy being a ty’s] Catholic-orient- appoints University officials and em- all Among re- ed institution.” the causes for deans, including department heads ployees, contract, tenure, or o'f scission He faculty. also and members established are violations of the standards adopt grants power tenure. He has the University, “especially per- by the those standards, policies and the curricula and taining personal behavior” and “offenses procedures of the He inter- morality.” Approximately to the Christian prets by-laws regulations, and all University’s faculty priests, 10% regard his decisions in this are final. representation in the unit who are included mission of the significant- by the This is certified Board. operated is further as a “church school” ly from the situation in different constituting by various of its accentuated lay sought only where teachers Arch- agreement with the documents. representation. 1) (see bishop footnote binds the my opinion, to under- Roman, it is difficult [Apostol- keep the faith of the “to University’s integrated Church, how the edu- edu- stand and a catholic and Catholic ic] commences at the system, cational philosophy.” by-laws cational] level, through parochial school continues that it is a “Catholic-ori- state presently. precisely ty one and which we shall discuss statement accentuates 3. This last analytical prevalent infra, page in the Board’s of the reasoning, flaws majori- adopted by which error high college, clauses, among school into ends with a those were impor- most school, religious graduate perceived can be tant concerns of evils sought list anything church-operated but a school guarded against be Founding Fa- appear with a It religious mission. Indeed, thers.5 Court has in- senseless to me for the to have that dicated these interests “plainly rank imposed religious requirements all re- its high scale of our national values.” garding, example, composition for of its 501, Bishop, 440 U.S. at management, promotion if of the Catholic at 1319. religion objective. its were not Granted Religion quite Clauses forbid two that, dealing perhaps university- when government different kinds of encroach students, possibly level “softer sell” is upon religious ment freedom. The estab approaches ap- more effective than other lishment clause promot bars a state from level, propriate parochial at the school but ing religion or adopting hostile attitude merely reflection of the Universi- religion, Kurtzman, towards Lemon v. 403 tactics, ty’s proselytizing negation not a of 602, 2105, 91 U.S. S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d 745 religious my To mission. view the evi- (1971). The free recognizes exercise clause dence in is overwhelming this case that the right every person of to choose his own operated” is “church within the pursuit in the course of his be meaning Bishop. of Catholic liefs, compulsion by free from governmen majority4 Board and the are still authority, tal right includes the relying on the “comрletely sub silencio re- nonbelief. Johnson v. Board County ligious” “religiously versus associated” Commissioners, F.Supp. (D.N.M. 528 919 rejected by test the Court Catholic Bish- 1981). Notwithstanding this dichotomy, op, supra, 7, 440 at U.S. 494 n. 99 at S.Ct. the Framers understood these two compo 1316 n. 7. The Catholic standard compatible mutually nents to sup is whether the school is a church-operated Thus, portive. to the extent these school. Once this threshold issue is another, clauses reinforce one doctrines de passed, reviewing court re- then veloped may under one clause also be rele quired determine, again under Catholic vant to other. v. See Gillette United assumption whether the Board’s States, 437, 828, 401 U.S. 28 church-operated over the school (1971); 168 L.Ed.2d v. presents a Walz Tax infringing risk of Commis sion, Religion 664, 1409, rights. 502, 397 U.S. S.Ct. Clauses 90 25 Id. at (1970); at Pesquera 1319. L.Ed.2d v. Surinach (1st Cir.1979). de Busquets, F.2d II. The First Amendment and Stan- Tribe, supra 814-15, also note dard Review overlapping 834. There is sufficient of is present sues in the case allow for the It not be coincidental con- that the joint questions discussion cepts raised re Religion embodied in the Clauses are specting both components of the Religion contained in the clauses of the First first I Clauses. See Abington Amendment. make this asseveration con- School District v. Schempp, scious of the fact state-church entan-

glement 1571,10 religious perse- (1963); and freedom from Catholic Bish cution, principal subject-matters N.L.R.B., op Chicago 559 F.2d (1st approach Cir.1983). (Central 4. The is reflected in the statement page opinion: found at 910 of the Bayamon pervasively religous ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍less than a Order, school). accepting parochial Even that the Dominican clearly organization, controls the Tribe, generally University, "general 5. See L. picture” American Constitution- wе find Law, (1978); Novack, Young, remains one of sec- al a more Rotunda & ular, sectarian, university. (2d ed.1983). rather than Constitutional Law omitted, majority’s footnote 5 is but Ramos, Cuesnongle should be also read. See (7th Cir.1977), aff'd, challenged chilling has a effect on the exer- S. Ct. religious rights cise of individual also. concepts important providing Two Underlying any analysis of whether chal- analysis rights a framework es- lenged governmental conduct is violative of Religion tablished Clauses. The Clauses, Religion involving whether in- concept ideal first is the core organizational rights dividual or a com- Tribe, Clearly, autonomy. supra, both, bination of there are two fundamen- right without to conduct one’s own voluntarism, principles: tal standing for influence, governmental affairs free from proposition Religion duty “that or this religious and the concomitant freedom which we owe our Creator and the Manner rights guaranteed by the First Amendment it, discharging only can be by directed meaningless. Laycock, be See To- conviction, reason and force or vio- Theory Religion wards a General lence,” separatism, sometimes called Clauses: The Case Church Labor Rela- “nonentanglement” principle, which re- Right Autonomy, tions and the Church position flects James Madison’s that both (1981). The second Colum.L.Rev. religion government can best achieve that, concept concerns the fact almost inev- high purposes their if each is free from the inherently itably, activity “is asso- other’s influence.8 ciational, interposing commu- testing compliance prin- for with these nity organization or between the state and ciples, which autonomy ensure the of reli- Tribe, supra, the individual believer.” (and gious organizations ultimately of indi- 812.6 well), viduals as it is concepts intеrplay. many These two challenged governmental action be at least religious rights situations individual are ul- justifiable Tribe, supra, in secular terms. timately notwithstanding the ones affected at 835. Thus has evolved the three- questioned governmental action pronged proclaimed in test Lemon v. face, initially, or on its is directed at an 602, 612-13, Kurtzman, 403 U.S. organization, though and even its collective 2105, 2111, (1971),requiring 29 L.Ed.2d 745 rights Laycock, jeopardy. also be in questioned governmental action supra. interplay The net result of this purpose, primarily have a secular a secular that, cases, rights many although effect, absence of excessive reli- determining issue is framed in terms of gious entanglement. Even if it can be autonomy religious orga- whether the governmental shown that action is not di- govern- nization has been breached religious aspect organiza- rected at of the action, religious rights mental individual life, tion’s if the essential of this are also at issue. I believe that such is the effect pursuit action is to influence the of a reli- present Although questions case. be- tradition, gious the action must be struck primarily appellant fore us affect as an Tribe, supra, down.9 at 839. The Su- organization, religious rights individual preme expanded require- Court has this ultimately affected: those of the also students, teachers, any ment to demand that non-secular effect those those remote, incidental, students, indirect and thus parents those of the compelling high university members of the com- standard of review from munity. governmental judiciary action here to determine whether this Commission, say inevitably" “right supra, 8. See v. Tax 6. I "almost because the 397 U.S. Walz protected by Religion non-belief” also es, Claus- 90 S.Ct. at 1411. frequently would less involve formal associa- оrganizations. tion will be struck down under the free exercise 9. It negative (e.g., inhibiting), if the clause effect Madison, J. Memorial and Remonstrance and under the establishment clause if the effect Assessments, quoted Against Religious v.Walz positive (e.g., promotional). Commission, supra, Tax 397 U.S. at J., (Douglas, dissenting). at 1437 inquiry narrow stringent rule has been met. Commit- make a whether the exer- See Nyquist, presents cise of the Board’s Public Education v. tee for significant risk that the First Amend- infringed. ment will be 79; (1973); Surinach, F.2d at supra, 604 Moreover, Tribe, Buckley supra, already at 840. also it is clear that the 1, 64-65, Valeo, go action beyond resolving Board’s will precept Appeals’ issues. The factual Court of This opinion charges refers to labor judicial triggered by of unfair review is also stricter practices against religious filed schools. entangle- presence of administrative The court observed that in those eases ment, institutional a notion that focuses on responded the schools had chal- that their state religion by with interference lenged were their actions mandated comes into conflict core religious creeds. The such resolution of Tribe, supra, religious autonomy. ideal of Board, instances, charges many at 866. See also Committee Public necessarily inquiry will involve into the Nyquist, supra. Education good position by faith of the asserted assumption my opinion the of Board’s clergy-administrators relationship and its jurisdiction appellant, over well as its as to the school’s It is missions. actions, ef- subsequent has a non-secular may be only conclusions that remote, upon appellant that is not fect by reached the Board im- incidental, signif- indirect creates rights guaranteed pinge by on Reli- entanglement risk of administrative icant Clauses, gion very process but also the religious orga- the state and the inquiry leading findings and con- of clusions. nizations. Board’s jurisdiction The exercise of Entanglement III. The and Non-Secular at least impact will have one other Effects church-operated schools. The Board determining whether risk upon will be called to decide what entanglement exists, again of need not we employment” “terms and conditions of go Bishop. further much than Catholic mandatory subjects and therefore of bar- There Court said: 158(d). gaining. See 29 Al- U.S.C. § by government intentions Good though interpreted —or the Board has not parties more surely third no avoid —can phrase as it relates to educational entanglement with the mission institutions, provisions pro- similar state setting mandatory of school in the of mandatory into insight vide the effect of bargaining collective than in the well-mo- bargaining. Oregon Ap- The of Court legislative tivated efforts consented peals “nearly everything noted that operated the church which we schools goes on the schools affects teachers Lemon, unacceptable in Meek found [v. arguably and is therefore of ‘condition Pittenger, U.S. employment’.” Walter, 217], and L.Ed.2d Wolman [v. Pennsylvania Supreme aptly Court U.S. L.Ed.2d mandatory the effect bar- summarized of 714]. gaining when it observed “intro- that the argues The Board it can avoid scope narrowly duction of how entanglement it will excessive since re- defined, repre- negotiation necessarily only factual as whether solve issues such upon an encroachment former sents an anti-union animus motivated an em- position management.” autonomous stage ployer’s action. But at of our this Inevitably inquiry impli- the Board’s will compelled consideration we аre not open cate issues that door sensitive entanglement determine whether the clergy-administra- to conflicts between board, excessive we would were we consider- tors ne- conflicts with unions____ Rather, ing gotiators the constitutional issue. hope unrealistic “that the N.L.R.B. will relationship in a The church-teacher seriously also consider these claims church-operated school differs from public or relationship shaped in a employment ensure that its orders are so as will 913). school. We see no nonreligious pass other constitutional muster” {id. flowing escape having difficulty I must confess to some conflicts from from exercise Board’s condemning proposition with the church-operated teachers litiga- to interminable ad hoc First consequent serious tion, purpose allowing for the it to con- questions that would Amendment clude what are the boundaries of its reli- fol- low____ freedom, gious auditing is not “continuous 501-04, 99 S.Ct. at 1319-20 does not have a substantial surveillance” or omitted). supplied, citations (emphasis chilling effect on the exercise of those free- doms This or- precisely “in the case arises present constitutionally ganization is' entitled to an bargain- setting mandatory collective autonomy that is inhibited the Board’s by the Court ing,” predicted Laycock, actions this case. See Towards prohibited entan- bring about the Bishop to Theory Religion a General Clauses: present case the Uni- In the glement. Id. Church Labor Relations and Cases unilaterally promulgated new re- versity Autonomy, supra. Right to Church regarding faculty credentials quirements bargaining notifying or first without particularly This disconcert situation Union, Board to an action found light pronouncements in the (29 8(a)(5)of the Act contrary to Section Pesquera this court in de Bus Surinach 158(a)(5)) it constitutes because U.S.C. § 73, (1st Cir.1979) quets, 604 F.2d 75-76 bargain concerning duty to violation of (Coffin, C.J.), striking ques in down a mere bargaining. mandatory subject of schools, including paro tionnaire sent to all 158(d) (“terms and conditions U.S.C. § schools, inquiring into tuition costs: chial See, employment”). e.g., N.L.R.B. v. obligation It is not the of the schools to Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 85 S.Ct. Bumup & prove precondition as for relief at this (1964). in 13 L.Ed.2d Court precise possi- this scenario time that [the Bishop unambiguously found might bility questionnaire that a lead to in- by to constitute such action the Board regulatory scheme], which an economic rights fringement of First Amendment hardly speculative, can be called in fact question. church-operated contrary, in the sen- will unfold. To the unexplainedly majority goes on to Yet area of First Amendment sitive appropriateness of Board rationalize the freedoms, upon the burden is the state to action, right protection out from under the implementation regu- show that the by Bishop umbrella. afforded ultimately infringe lation scheme will not According majority, Bishop entangle upon and it the affairs of a First it states that the implicated. is not religion which the Constitu- to an extent only involved after an Board will become In tion will not countenance. cases of filed, practice charge is thus unfair labor nature, court often be called this will auditing making unnecessary “continuous posture; it upon predictive to act in a 911). Next it claims (Op. surveillance” at a course step not aside and await entirely many charges will be promises to raise serious events which 14) (slip op. secular at where problems. constitutional truly in- University’s religious freedom is omitted). (emphasis original, footnotes bargain and test its volved it can rеfuse to majority adopting is now “trial 912). Finally, the position in court {id. court in posture rejected by run” this Suri- quite “takes seri- majority indicates that it by Circuit in nach and the Seventh Catho- University’s that certain ously the concern Bishop. lic Chica- potentially interfere See Catholic union demands could (7th N.L.R.B., character,” go but voices with Cir.1977), upheld tions have aff'd, imposition, U.S. this inhibit- ing though may be, It is fact allow it policy decla- very process leading inquiry “the rations are found at 29 U.S.C. 141 and §§ conclusions,” findings condemned disagree not We do sound- Bishop, an the court in Catholic “im legislative ness of policy determina- rights pinge[ment] guaranteed tions consistently which have been up- Religion Clauses.” Catholic su held only say the courts. We pra, 440 99 S.Ct. at 1319. imposition when that conflicts with the Religion my opinion Circuit Clauses the First Amend- Seventh best protective ment Bishop: prevail. stated the case wall should bishop, example, If a should refuse (citations omitted). 559 F.2d at 1123-1124 lay faculty to renew all teacher contracts As that court went on say, para- “these the union because he believed that had digmatic merely situations ... are not fan- adopted policies practices at odds ciful horror tales devised employer with the character insti- who seeks avoid jurisdic- labor board tutions, replace or because he wanted to they tion.” Id. at 1125. Rather are situa- lay religious-order teachers with teachers readily tions practical foreseeable in the available, who had become under ecclesi- world of labor relations. right he if astical law would have the jurisdic- Because the Board’s assertion Yet, duty take that action. under appellant tion over the violates First Act, the National Labor Relations he Amendment, I dissent. See also Catholic might guilty well be found of an unfair High School Ass’n Archdiocese v. Cul- practice. difficulty labor real is vert, F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1983), chilling aspect found in the the re- thqt. Cir.1985). part, (2d rev’d in 753 F.2d 1161 quirement of bargaining impose on will bishops’ exercise control of the BREYER, Judge, with Circuit whom religious mission of the To min- schools. CAMPBELL, Judge LEVIN H. Chief imize friction between the Church and TORRUELLA, Judge, Circuit join. Board, prudence ultimately will dic- Bishop Chicago, NLRB v. Catholic bishop tate that his tailor conduct L.Ed.2d and decisions to “steer wider of far the (1979), Court, reading the the Na- impermissible zone” of unlawful conduct. light tional Labor Relations Act in If, example, give a teacher should a Clause, First Amendment’s Establishment strong pro-union speech meeting aat one held jurisdic- that the Labor Board lacked week and the next week would advocate tion church-operated over “teachers the cause of birth to his control or her Bishop schools.” NLRB v. Catholic availability poor students favor the or to of Chicago, abortion, 440 U.S. at at 1322. people bishop of the would be involves, The case us foregoing with a choice before not confronted of his right discharge employee the schools as in Bishop, heretical Catholic but a col- lege university, or the protracted do so at risk of a called Universidad Cen- expensive practice proceed- Bayamon. legal present- unfair labor tral de The issue the applies before Board which would cer- ed is Bishop whether Catholic a tainly in part involve the Church’s reli- church-operated college college that —a gious policies and beliefs. provide seeks primarily its students education, a secular but also sum, which main- say it is that an unrealistic subsidiary religious tains a mission. Given employer bargain- which has to honor substantially Bishop’s language purposes, ing order is not inhibited in oper- in which its risks of forbidden entan- manner it conducts church/state other, glement, bargaining ations. This is true of all the existence of related general upon jurisdic- orders on the limitations but industrial and Labor Board’s policy teachers, scene university commercial sound considera- tion over three of us that, respects. conclude as in other response It wrote in to the before University’s lacks case claim: of contrary. us. Three us conclude the owned, University [T]he financed divided, equally Since this court is it cannot or controlled Dominican Order or grant request Labor Board’s to enforce Church, Roman Catholic and ... requiring University its order to bar- University’s academic mission is sec- gain faculty with its union. ular. panel court,

A of 2-1, this vote granted enforcement of the Board’s order. I court, however, The full pan- vacated the Background el’s decision banc, and reheard the case en 46(c); Fed.R.App.P. 35(a), U.S.C. six § We can set forth necessary procedur- sitting light members the court background al and factual briefly. The fact judge senior circuit was a mem- University Bayamon, located Puerto panel. 46(c). ber of the 28 U.S.C. We § faculty union, Rico. Its full-time formed a evenly are now divided as proper sought bargaining certification as outcome. Board, agent; a hearing, after called election; representation for a the union II election; certified; won the it was and the bargain. refused to At the re- Nature sulting practice” proceeding, “unfair labor finding Board’s that the Catho claims, see renewed lic Church does not “control” the Universi 159(d), 160(e)-(f), faculty U.S.C. that its §§ ty legally unsupрortable; it lacks “sub statutory authority, fell outside the Board’s stantial in the evidence” record. U.S.C. either because the university was “church- 706(2)(E). Rather, record, as we read § under (unregulated controlled” it, following: shows the Bishop) or members, faculty because its University is “Catholic-oriented” like major university those most facul- higher institution- of learning founded ties, “management” held various preroga- the Dominican Order the Roman Catho- schedules, appointments, tives over provided lic Church. The Dominicans sub- curriculum, thereby depriving them La- support, land, including gifts stantial NLRB v. Yeshiva Uni- protection, bor Act buildings, scholarships (perhaps) ad- versity, Initially, ministrative salaries. the Univer- The Board’s Adminis- sity was a branch Catholic Universi- Judge rejected trative Law claim latter Ponce; ty two-year it only awarded “as- ground on the virtually that the had degrees. Today, sociate’s” powers; no administrative it rejected the independent of Catholic and prece- former claim on the of basis Board four-year program. a offers It is located dent Catholic apply that refused to grounds on the seminary of the Dominican colleges that were church-con- neither Bayamon, in And, Rico. part Puerto it is sectarian.” Col- “pervasively trolled nor integrated of an system educational Dame, lege Notre 245 N.L.R.B. 386 of the Dominican system Fathers maintain —a (1979); College, Barber-Scotia N.L. includes elementary and sec- (1979) (both citing Tilton Rich- R.B. 406 ondary schools, University, the and a semi- ardson, nary priesthood for candidates. The Uni- (1971), distinguished col- versity undergradu- itself consists four leges from the context Humanities, Education, ate Busi- divisions — education). review, of federal aid to On Administration, ness and Natural Sciences. University’s the exempted Labor Board the seminary bargain- the from AU’s Administrative control the order; but, it affirmed the all the order lies in hands of members of the Domini- University by-laws, University____ cial of the the affairs Order. Under can [T]he tenure, must be no role in faculty plays hiring, the President the (Its sabbaticals, current President is priest. termination, pro- Dominican and motion____ Vicar, highest the Regional of- Order’s the in those where areas [E]ven Rico.) in Puerto A ma- the Order ficial of contributed, faculty the has recommenda- Trustees must be the Board of jority of frequently disregarded. tions been have priests. majority A of the five- Dominican University’s Although primary mis- (which acts committee member executive provision “basically” sion sec- meetings) must be the Board between for education, the University ular also main- priests. The Board Trustees Dominican subsidiary religious tains mission—a-mis- Regional Vicar of the include the must agreement sion in an described Order, of the the Prior Convent Dominican Order, Archbishop Dominican of San Rosary, and the Lady of the Univer- of Our Congregation Juan and the Sacred of Cath- priests. The sity President —all Dominican in Rome as olic Education follows: Rico con- Order in Puerto Dominican Roman, Apostolic faith of the keep the body by a called the trolled seven-member Church, and [keep] and a catho- Vicarate; five of Regional Council of philosophy, light lic education currently members seven members ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍are its by the guided Christian Revelation and Board of Trustees. University’s Church, teachings of the Doctors of the Administration, Moreover, respon- foremostly, Aquinas, Saint Thomas by the and controlled sible to impulse theological President, greater authority exercises far spiritual patrimony of the Order Saint major universities over the in most than Guzman, originat- Domingo of which has specific detailed decisions constitute ed the university life. The Administrative Law opinion explain- his Judge, in the section of The and secular missions of the University’s teachers ing why the do not University kept totally separate. are not “managerial” authority, see NLRB exercise students, The holds itself out supra, found that University, Yeshiva faculty community a Catholic as (i.e., Regional Vicar of the President “University refers to school. Its Bulletin” Order) actively Dominican controls hir- times mission least thirteen ing, firing, promotion and tenure decisions. thirty-four pages in its text. Its Board and President themselves regulations discipline “offenses to allow all financial decide issues. morality.” encourages at- the Christian It Administration, faculty, ultimately not the parochial It tendance at Mass. uses the curriculum, assignments, class determines “teaching operates campus schools it class size workload. Administra- for education students. It laboratories” Judge Law concluded: tive requires all students to take four courses weighing totality of what Re- theology theology philosophy, do, professors spondent’s certainly it is usually taught by priests being Dominican telling major their most of contribu- text, philosophy from a Dominican and the implementation tion derives from the having Catholic orientation. Dominican policy president set and board of priests percent about 10 constitute following merely and from or- trustees And, faculty. University operates ____ [Pjrofessors do decide ders seminary campus. on the scheduled____ courses will be when [I]t record, this we that the Given conclude the administration which decided was Dominican Order controls this taught shall be and not the facul- who agree adequately sup- record We that the ty____ faculty’s views have not de- finding ports Board’s that the Univеrsi- body, the the size of the student termined play managerial role charged, ty’s faculty the does not the tuition to location of be school, willing to in affairs. We are anything related the finan- also

401 in University, respect in full For one thing, the to its force. the to describe Catholic mission, language the Tilton Bishop in of v. Rich- Court feared that a filing teacher’s 687, 2100, ardson, 403 U.S. at 91 S.Ct. at practice charge of an unfair labor might an: namely, as well force Board to “good the decide the admittedly religious position faith of clergy- with asserted [institution] higher predominant relationship but whose functions administrators provide stu- education is to ... school’s mission.” NLRB mission v. a secular education. dents with Bishop Chicago, Catholic U.S. at of 502, teacher, at 1320. S.Ct. for And, previous opin- light in of the Board’s rules, example, might regula- claim that 399, ions, p. supra, believe it is see tions, promotions, hirings, firings re- policy apply to not Catho- conscious animus,” flected an “anti-union while the to an educational institution so Bishop lic might their administrators claim Friendly, Chenery Revisit- actions described. See upon religious Id.; were based reasons. on Reversal and Remand ed: Reflections 158(a)(3); Orders, 1969 Duke Law see 29 U.S.C. Administrative Radio § Officers' of 199; NLRB, Corp., Chenery J. SEC U.S. Union v. U.S. S.Ct. cf. (1943). 87 L.Ed. 98 L.Ed. 455 higher kind of institution of Whether this great This risk seem in colleges as falls within the strictures of education as in (particularly schools sec- view, is, Bishop impor- in our Catholic Board, ondary prior that tant, likely recurring, question that calls “merely classified Catholic guidance. Court Supreme for associated,” religiously p. see in- fra). Dominicans, example, not Ill only teach Christian ethics at Universi- Bishop Catholic ty, right but also claim the to dismiss of us conclude Those who that a teachers for “offenses to the Christian mo- college, church-controlled such as Universi rality.” imagine can One Bayamon, dad de falls within the Central imposing upon faculty sanctions that re- scope Bishop rest our conclu late, say, in counseling let us the sensi- First, language sion on reasons. four abortion; reviewing tive area of such sanc- Bishop itself does not distin place squarely in tions would the Board guish colleges primary and secondary from position determining “good what Rather, the there schools. Court held: practice respect faith” Dominican in contemplate did not Congress Indeed, counseling. such it difficult to require church-operated Board would imagine examples secondary school grant recognition to schools to unions as equal could not the col- arise ease teachers____ agents bargaining for their lege context. Accordingly, in the absence of a clear Further, Court Catholic expression Congress’ bring intent to Bishop that it stated church-operated schools with- teachers only conclusions Board, we de- may impinge the Board reached construe the Act a manner cline to rights guaranteed by Religion upon in turn that could call Court to Clauses, very process also the but questions resolve difficult and sensitive leading inquiry findings and conclu- guarantees arising out First sions. Religion Amendment Clauses. Bishop Chicago,

NLRB Catholic Chicago, NLRB v. 506-07, 99 at 1322. U.S. at S.Ct. at This kind of “entanglement” arising inquiry “state/religion out of Second, entangle- — process well underlay itself—is illustrated an ex- problems ment” Court’s case, present cerpt record in Bishop holding here from the this an ex- many theology philosophy teaching so and questioned church counsel cerpt in which courses. liturgies and about confiden- officials about offi- among church communications

tial many of might reply that these One excerpt in an placed the We have cials. Bishop exist whenever a Catholic concerns compare reader can appendix, where non-religious enterprise, runs a church excerpts that excerpt with record Tony or farm. hospital as a such Bishop. quoted Supreme Court v. Secre- Alamo Foundation Susan strikingly excerpts sets of find the two We Labor, tary event, see no lesser any we can In similar. (1985) (church-run ser- process” at the “intrusive respect to risk stations, stores, grocery hog farm vice secondary primary or college, than at the Yet, enterprises). philosophical, and other fact, university’s education. levels of theological church-related moral issues frequent, to more may lead secular mission likely permeate more to would seem charges,” complex “unfair labor more or process (especially how or what educational alleg- to evaluate requiring the Board counseled) taught than the students are edly religious motive. hospitals. of farms or even administration And, here, religious val- the inculcation of Bishop Court ex- Finally, the ues is at least one purpose of the institu- scope poten- concern about pressed Regardless, the Labor Board’s since tion. inquiry, given the entangling Board tially roughly ‘entanglement problems’ here are of em- “terms and conditions that the fact level, secondary this the same as at the “mandatory sub- ployment” teachers — aimed at Catho- argument properly is more the context of “ed- bargaining” jects of —in itself, Bishop application than at our lic may concern institutions” ucational it. life, “nearly everything whole of school in the school affects teachers Bishop goes Third, apply to fail to arguably a ‘condition opinion’s is therefore undercut basic here is to ” Bishop v. employment.’ NLRB Catholic The Court there purpose. rationale 502-03, Chicago, pre-existing dis- Labor Board’s rejected the Education Association 1320; Springfield “completely tinction 19, No. District “merely religiously associated Springfield School schools” (1976). so, 751, 759, doing sought mini- 547 P.2d it to Or.App. schools.” in- Labor Relations mize the extent which Labor Board Pennsylvania to See also “complete- College Area Dis- (necessary to make the School quiry Board State distinction) would it- trict, ly/merely-associated” 337 A.2d 461 Pa. affairs. entangle the Board prob- this self to see how It is difficult rationale, therefore, cannot college Under this level. any less serious at lem is new, creating finely entanglement by freedom” avoid (Indeed, need for “academic that will them- spun judicial distinctions might be teaching “burdens” from certain further court or Labor require college lev- selves strongly at the more asserted they adminis- ‘entanglement’ as (including reli- el.) college curriculum to exclude To order the Board teach- tered. the manner of gious requirements), unit; bargaining ap- priests from principles), the (according to Christian seminary having separated the prove its stu- obligations to counsel teachers’ school; spe- create from the rest religious principles (and moral or dents rules; promise that seem, proof cial burden counseling) would that underlie the control the Board’s in the future will courts case of as in the as much matters, is to efforts to examine schools, employment’ ‘conditions of to be fоre- path that bargain- tread ‘mandatory subjects that are efforts, applica- hoc These ad sug- closes. Indeed, in this case the record ing.’ signif- will themselves involve of which tion faculty on the gests that some precisely what the entanglement, are icant objected planning committee Senate’s Supreme Bishop Court in sought protection” Catholic federal labor is a common cir- to avoid. Finally, cumstance. Bishop Catholic Court noted that

Fourth, we do not believe that the cases the Senate relies, Committee on which the Education namely, Labor Board Richardson, 672, college Labor chose a professor’s Tilton v. 403 U.S. dispute 2091, (1971); S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d 790 college Hunt v. with the example as an em- McNair, 734, 2868, ployer-employee relations not covered (1973); Roemer v. Board S.Rep. 573, the Act. No. Cong., 74th 1st Works, Public U.S. Sess., (1935). (1976), 49 L.Ed.2d 179 are determinative. NLRB v. Bishop Catholic Chicago, 440 government Those cases all involve aid to 504-05, U.S. at 99 S.Ct. at 1321. education, promotion and its religion. In sum, application of Catholic Bishop context, might one believe it easier to poses here no threat to the coherence of target aspects financial aid to the secular And, the Labor Act. Bishop’s university’s mission than to those of a language, reasoning, purposes make it secondary Regardless, school. in the con- applicable stated, here. For the reasons jurisdiction, text Labor Board the consti- enforcement of the Board’s order is one, tutional concern pro- not of state Denied. motion, but of through state interference regulation. However one reasons about COFFIN, aid,” Circuit Judge,

“financial from regulatory perspec- with whom BOWNES, significant Judge tive we cannot find a Circuit differеnce and BAILEY ALDRICH, secondary between the (particularly school Senior Circuit Judge, join. “merely religiously associated” second- incorporate by We original reference the school) ary college university. and the majority opinion, supra (sub- at 383-391 practice charges Unfair labor would seem withdrawn), sequently and add the follow- likely; likely scrutiny as the Board’s would ing respond comments particular intense; seem at least as the necessary approach taken our brothers in their en distinctions and labor banc decision. make; matters would seem no easier to tarry long We do not over argument and whether one readily could “fence off” “church-operated that the term in schools” subjects mandatory bargaining with a Bishop implies all levels of edu- religious content similarly would seem in institutions; cational the mere absence of doubt. adjective “secondary” phrase in that time, At the same it is difficult to find does not tell us Although much. “school” any unusually strong arising interest out suggests schooling prior to us to the uni- of the Labor Act juris- itself that calls for level, versity language ambig- is at best diction here. As the Court ob- uous. in served NLRB v. Bishop really What panels divides our two in Chicago, 440 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. at this en banc differing consideration is our the Board’s assertion of views of the Court’s rationale in Catholic nonprofit educational institutions is a rela- Bishop. Our brothers see no tively phenomenon. Moreover, recent state/religion difference the risks of en- light of NLRB v. Yeshiva University, tanglement parochial between the second- U.S. anomaly there is no ary schools at issue in the fact that a school receive feder- i.e., “Tiltori’-tyge colleges, religiously con- al aid but its cannot invoke Labor trolled predоminant universities with a protection. Act mis- many, Yeshiva means that most, sion of university if not secular education. faculties fall Tilton v. Rich- outside event, ardson, any the Act in because the universi-

ty degree affords them a managerial contrast, Hence, autonomy. “federal aid without we Bishop’s read Catholic basic rationale carrying ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍resting unique role that teachers servants of the Church out the on the play elementary elementary missions of and sec- fulfilling in schools, as servants of the Church ondary the Court could hold that school. We view religious mission of the very existence of a union and mandato- separates the role gap as critical ry bargaining imper- in such schools would profes- from the role of such teachers relationship missibly violate this essential Bayamon. as sors in a school such and teacher. in between church Teachers grades play integral the lower such an role read- briefly To review the basis for our inculcating their students with in the Court noted of Catholic doctrine, play such that, school’s involving decisions aid to its recent schools, “recognized important role as models for parochial it had students, unique Supreme critical and role of the teacher their Court church-operated any of a fulfilling the mission could well conclude that state labor 501, Bishop, 440 U.S. at regulation inevitably school.” Catholic result in the that, in the 99 S.Ct. at 1319. It observed entanglement religion government. it, “[r]eligious secondary schools before au- exempt Bayamon similarly In order sys- thority necessarily pervades the school jurisdiction, from NLRB we deem the rele- tem,” 501, 99 at 1319 440 U.S. at S.Ct. inquiry to be whether teachers in that vant Kurtzman, 403 (quoting Lemon v. U.S. university play played a role similar to that 2105, 2113, 29 L.Ed.2d 91 S.Ct. religious secondary by teachers in schools. Lemon, (1971))and, 745 as in the schools importance It is of critical to remind our- “ignore danger that a it could not on a selves that we do not write clean slate religious control and disci- teacher under engage analysis. in this nu- when we On pline poses separation to the of the reli- occasions, Supreme Court has merous gious purely aspects from the secular significant perceives stated that it differ- Quoting from pre-college education.” Id. church-operated elementary ences between 349, 421 Pittenger, Meek v. U.S. 95 S.Ct. church-operated secondary schools and or 1753, (1975), the em- 44 L.Ed.2d 17 Court line in colleges. The Court first drew this importance of the teacher’s phasized “the Richardson, 672, Tilton v. function in a church school: Whether the (1971) 2091, L.Ed.2d 790 and it has S.Ct. subject reading,” “advanced is “remedial consistently to it. adhered “reading”____” reading,” simply Tilton, upheld Court 501, 1319. It concluded U.S. at 99 S.Ct. at grant of federal monies to church-affiliated analysis by quoting Douglas’s Justice universities, “[tjhere gen- stating that remark in Lemon that “the raison detre of between the erally differences propagation of a parochial schools is the religious aspects of church-related institu- religious faith.” 440 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. higher learning parochial ele- tions of at secondary schools.” 403 U.S. mentary and us, therefore, that the Su- It seems to at 2099. The Court ob- simply concerned preme Court was not that, complete in contrast served general regulation state with sought in students education control over Rather, its focus educational institution. schools, “[mjany church- pre-college church unique particularly on the church- was colleges and universities are charac- related existing parochial relationship teacher degree free- by high terized of academic Indeed, the not- secondary schools. Court seek to evoke free and critical dom and was on the fact ed that its conclusion based responses from their students.” Id. See relationship in a the “church-teacher McNair, Hunt v. U.S. also church-operated school differs from the (1973) (college 37 L.Ed.2d 923 S.Ct. public or employment relationship in a oth- religious organization is controlled nonreligious 440 U.S. at er school.” federal sufficiently secular to receive Because the Court saw at 1320. funds); essentially Public Roemer v. Board Works parochial teachers in Maryland, not, think, it is sufficient to establish (1976) (same). Just last that the role and character of term, Rapids in Grand School District Bayamon is similar to “unique role” —Ball, City Rapids Grand U.S. played by parochial teachers in elementary -, (1985), secondary schools as described elementary the Court noted that Supreme Court. In university prides dealing schools it was that case itself on providing “a humanistic education sectarian, pervasively were and stated in a (A. level”, 286) at an academic teachers are elementary footnote: “The expected provide the intense inculca- schools in this case substantially differ religious experience tive for their students colleges from the we refused to character- that is the norm religious in a elementary “pervasively ize as sectarian” in Roemer v. secondary school. Board, Maryland Public Works argue Our brothers that it is erroneous at 755-59 S.Ct. at ... Hunt v. [96 2349-51] rely on the distinction religious McNair, 413 U.S. 734 S.Ct. [93 secondary schools and “Tilton"-type uni- (1973); Richardson, L.Ed.2d Tilton v. 923] versities as established in the aid-to-school 29 L.Ed.2d [91 790] They argue cases. that the basic сonstitu- (1971).” at n. 6. See also in cases “pro- tional concern those was the — Felton, U.S.-, Aguilar v. religion”. Supra By motion of at 403. contrast, they contend that the constitu- record, us, From the it is clear to as it is tional concern in the context of juris- labor brothers, Bayamon to our resembles diction is “state through interference regu- colleges the church-affiliated addressed Thus, lation”. Id. a regulatory “[f]rom Tilton, Hunt, in Court perspective”, they can find no Indeed, looking specifically Roemer. religious difference between faculty Bayamon, we observe that schools and universities. Id. they faculty are similar to the at those We contend that Bishop should universities, church-affiliated and indeed to speaking not be read broadly against so faculty at secular most universities. Un- state in religiously-con- interference all Bayamon’s bylaws, der only require- trolled educational Certainly, institutions. hiring faculty ments for member are that generally if the Court was “possess the candidate concerned with appropriate aca- regulation state labor degrees, religious demic be of a sound institu- moral charac- tions, ter it would pedagogical quali- equally and show traits of be concerned with (A. 296) faculty jurisdiction ties.” NLRB religious hospitals member’s over “teaching functions are described as: and social organizations. service Our classes, giving examinations, brothers grading assert the “philosophical, handing grades time, orienting theological and church-related moral issues students, participating actively in the uni- would seem likely permeate more life, versity doing research work and seek- process educational ... than the adminis- ing professional development, his any tration of hospitals.” farms or еven Supra assigned others by the Academic Dean.” at 402. We are not so sure. One of the (A. 296) hiring faculty These criteria for examples of a church-related moral issue person and these functions presented by our brothers would arise professor are no different from those at university imposes when a sanctions on country. most universities across the faculty members regarding who counsel abortions. Bayamon Supra

It is true at 401. It seems to us that under that doctors regulations professor hospi- and nurses in may terminated tals similarly patients regard- for “offenses to counsel morality.” the Christian (A. 311) availability This rule particu- is understandable in a of abortions— university seeking larly that is religious hospitals to offer its sec- those that do not religious auspices, ular education under performance but allow the of abortions. Sim- quire religiously-based into whether rea- could arise other ilar situations Yet, son, given wake of Catholic discharge, truly part for a institutions. appeals have numerous courts of dogma; may only church determine jurisdiction does extend held that NLRB is part the reason of a “dual mo- whether hospitals and social affiliated religiously discharge). for the tive” organizations. e.g., Volunteers service sum, we believe that the differences Boys None America-Minnesota-Bar that exist between role of teachers (8th NLRB, Cir. 752 F.2d Ranch v. religious pre-college schools and the role of — U.S.-, denied, 1985), cert. faculty at universities such as (1985); Post Denver mean that extend Bayamon we should not NLRB, 732 America v. the Volunteers of case, holding Bishop to this (10th Cir.1984); Elizabeth’s F.2d 769 St. virtually compelled In- unless to do so. NLRB, (7th Cir. 715 F.2d Hospital v. deed, reasoning language, believe the Hospital 1983); Community Elizabeth St. purposes guide of Catholic us Cir.1982); (9th NLRB, 708 F.2d 1436 allоwing towards NLRB Lutheran Home Children Tressler admittedly an institution “with (3rd Cir.1982). NLRB, These higher predominant functions but whose the rationale are consistent with decisions provide mission is stu- education ... such purpose a secular dents with education”. Tilton institutions, many like religiously affiliated Richardson, 672, 687, 403 U.S. universities, do not religiously affiliated 29 L.Ed.2d 790 exists in entanglement risk of pose the play schools where teachers pre-college all-encompassing an role. such APPENDIX that, contend if we allow Our brothers testimony The recorded in this case university such NLRB over a Juan, Archbishop of San Cardinal in- Bayamon, inquiries will as Board’s Church, the Catholic reads: evitably intrude into the doctrines Garcia, Q. [By Mr. Counsel]: at 401- university. supra See Eminence, you know, many if Your how specula- largely These concerns are required liturgies are Universidad at Indeed, at the moment. our brothers’ tive Bayamon? de Central improper inquiry, supra example of prove? May I ask will that A. what reprinted signif- (excerpt appendix), Q. asking question are Well we who, icantly lawyer in this flawed. The hope you Eminence can Your that we case, questioned about lit- church officials just If tell you answer. can’t answer it University, not urgies was counsel for the you cannot. us questions as Board. The were asked rebut liturgies, of counsel’s effort to

part suppose extensive I have they A. Well Archbishop of San the statement many. but I don’t know how Bayamon was not a “Catholic” Juan Hearing may, If I If Officer: Witness. owing fealty to university, in the sense of you you know the answer are instructed origi- diocese—an issue deemed please you answer. If not state that panel essentially to be irrelevant nal personal knowledge have no of whether University was controlled long as the any they or are re- thеre are whether supra order. some quired. Further, if over- n. 5. the Board does bounds, always free step its court [Colloquy] prophylactic rule similar to to fashion Yes, Eminence, Q. Your would like recently adopted Circuit one the Second Assoc, regards liturgies to know to the Archdio- High School Culvert, may required may be occur at Univer- York cese New (1985) (Board you in- de if have Bayamon, sidad Central 1168-69 Chicago, 490, 507-08, 1313, 1322-23, knowledge any personal you or if have (1979), reads as follows: participated any of them? Well, exactly A. first of all I don’t know Q. [by Hearing Now, we have Officer] liturgies they may number have at quite had a bit of testimony already as to University. exactly I don’t know liturgies, and I don’t want to beat a dead Secondly, number. I don’t remember horse; you but let me ask question: one itself, having said Mass at the you know, If many liturgies how chapel since it doesn’t have a as such. parochial at Catholic high nearby, belongs Church schools; you do know? Now, parish; there I have said I Mass. A. I think problem our first with that like add that I have said Mass defining would be liturgies. That word jails in other like institutions and so forth many would have you definitions. Do and that doesn’t make them Catholic. go want to into that? before, Q. you I believed defined it Q. you Do remember if in or around correct, you when first testified? you November 1974 met with President try briefly A. I am not sure. Let me Rooij pos- Vicente van and discussed the again, okay? do it sibility persons working that some of the underlings in as his the administration Q. Yes. could fired or substituted other liturgy range anywhere from A. A can persons? word, which is the strictest sense very interceding A. I remember well Mass in the Roman sacrifice of the priests for some who were bounced from terminology. go It can from way I disliked very way down to a informal that all the done, I which it was so called Fathеr prayer. in what we call shared group my great and I him displeas- Vicente told praying togeth- individuals Two or three way priests ure at the these had been reflecting own reactions to a their er and treated. reading. All of those—and scriptural Q. you Do if in remember or around those big spectrum between there is a

January you of 1975 sent communica- popularly are of these two extremes—all regarding your tions to Rome desire to liturgies. to as referred power have a closer and more effective Q. I see. Bayamon? over Universidad de Central possibly repeating your A. Now A. That I have done several times. you give question, could me an idea of Definitely. spectrum, respond I could more cor- Q. you Do remember if or around rectly. February, you also sent letters to Well, Q. let regarding Rome the functions us stick with the formal of Father know, president you many van If Rooij Vincente of the Masses. how Masses parochial high and Maria Molinero as vice at Catholic president regard- schools? persons in other the administration none, required. A. have none Some University? during Some would have two or three may A. I have in the same sense that I year Holy Days what call where perogatives I said have certain with the Obligation days. coincide with school

priests I may of the Archdiocese. have days prefer Some schools on those exactly done it. I don’t remember as I day have a Mass within the school so it, priest did I He but have. is a there, the students attend rather Archdiocese, ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍Father Vicente. parish their churches. Some than idea; good schools feel that this is not Monsignor testimony O’Donnell parish they always should their Appendix cited in NLRB v. Catholic church; great varies a deal from so that

school to school. America, Appellee,

UNITED STATES INGRALDI,

Peter F.

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 85-1677. Appeals,

United States Court of

First Circuit.

Argued April 16, 1986.

Decided June

Case Details

Case Name: Universidad Central De Bayamon v. National Labor Relations Board, and Union De Profesores Universitarios, Intervenor

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Jun 13, 1986

Citation: 793 F.2d 383

Docket Number: 85-1074

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.