District 65 Will Not Contest Harvard's Victory in Med Area

Despite their belief that Harvard committed unfair labor practices during the campaign, members of the District 65 Medical Area organizing committee will not contest their union's defeat in last week's organizing election among Med Area workers, a committee member said yesterday.

Jeremy D. Pool '67 said the committee will not contest the election-- in which Med Area employees rejected, 436-346, District 65's bid to represent them in their future dealings with Harvard--because it would probably not be able to secure a new election any sooner than it could without the appeal.

Appeal

Pool said the appeals process would probably take at least a year, while the union will automatically qualify to petition for a new Med Area election at that time. The deadline for filing any possible appeal to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) expired yesterday.

The committee also believes that the offenses that Harvard allegedly committed during the campaign are "marginal in terms of what broad precedent might permit for a new election," any they therefore should not bother with the appeal, Pool added.

Pool said Harvard allegedly violated NLRB campaign rules in the course of its "information campaign" to acquaint Med Area workers of the University's reasons for opposing the union. Edward W. Powers, associate general counsel for employee relations, yesterday declined to comment on Pool's charges.

"Their statement speaks for itself--obviously we don't think we committed an unfair labor practice," he said.

The campaign, which followed an NLRB ruling granting the union the right to hold the election after three yearsof legal maneuvering, included the University's distribution of 12 pamphlets outlining Harvard's arguments.

The leaflets were part of an "incredibly vicious campaign" that included "isolated incidents of intimidation" of workers, who were frequently threatened with a loss of benefits if District 65 won the election, Pool said.

"But Harvard is very careful in the way it phrases things--what may have the effect of a threat on its employees is always worded in a protected way," he added.