Developments that have occurred in faculty collective bargaining and governance since the Supreme Court decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Yeshiva University are examined, along with the legal framework of the case. The ruling held that the entire faculty at Yeshiva University was managerial and, thus, not entitled to bargain collectively under the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. Public colleges and universities have been protected from Yeshiva-like claims by the existence of statutory public sector labor laws. However, 37 private institutions have made claims based on the Yeshiva case. Among the stands of the private institutions are the following: outright refusal to bargain successor agreements, refusal to bargain initial agreements, movement to have union certification proceedings halted pending resolution of Yeshiva claims, and use of threat of Yeshiva at the bargaining table as leverage to win concessions. The specific institutions that have made a Yeshiva claim are listed and some of the claims are described. The legal positions of the unions in the post-Yeshiva period include the following: place the burden of proof on the employer to show the applicability of Yeshiva; build a record on appeal showing the inapplicability of the so-called 90 percent Yeshiva rule; and continue to file unfair labor practice charges before the NLRB in those cases where institutions refuse to negotiate successor agreements. In the future there could be an impact of the case in the public sector involving a gradual erosion of faculty bargaining units that contain teaching faculty deemed to be managerial or supervisory. Guidelines for the future regarding the case are presented. (SW)