Union's Labour Lost

The Union's governing board lost its attempt to gain an injunction against Crockett when a judge last week threw the case out of court. The judge argued that "irreparable harm had not been done to the union," and that the case was not strictly an internal union matter because "Harvard should be joined as a necessary third party," Joseph Flynn, HUERA's attorney, said this week.

The union made overtures to the University to discuss the unfair labor practice suit after it lost its suit against Crockett. One administration source said recently, "They're being conciliatory because they lost the case. How can the union go to the NLRB and expect to win an unfair labor practice when the union's president is testifying for the company?"

HUERA's attorney Flynn denied that the union's decision to sit down with Harvard was prompted by its failure to remove Crockett as president. "The NLRB is obligated to encourage labor peace--and the union is willing to make an honest effort to settle this thing."

But before the suit against Crockett by the union failed, Flynn acknowledged that, "The president (Crockett) is running haywire. We'll be in a much better position once the union's president is gone--that is, if we can get a restraining order."

The union encountered difficulty with the University, Flynn said, because Harvard refused to recognize Crockett's resignation. "The fact is, he resigned," Flynn added.

But Powers said he never received written notice that HUERA's president had resigned, adding that when he spoke with Crockett, he was told that "the union's executive board held a meeting to accept his resignation without inviting Charlie. He said he had retracted his resignation."

The unfair labor practice suit climaxed a six-month struggle between the University and the union, which represents about 550 workers, including about 500 custodians and 50 security guards.

Soon after HUERA agreed to a three-year contract last February, two executive board members, vice-president Bonislawski and shop steward Edward Gardin, filed a grievance against Harvard on behalf of two part-time workers promoted to full-time jobs and placed at the bottom of the full-time seniority scale.

Powers said the decision to put promoted part-timers at the lowest rung on the seniority list was a union proposal left ambiguous during bargaining sessions. Bonislawski this week vigorously denied that the union forwarded such a proposal.

HUERA's executive board, including Crockett, voted not to pursue the grievance on behalf of part-time workers. Bonislawski and Gardin complained of harassment and filed a grievance of their own, charging that Harvard had punished them for attending meetings as union representatives.

After the grievance alleging harassment for union activity passed the University's final stage before arbitration, HUERA voted to file an unfair labor practice suit with the NLRB rather than send the case to arbitration.

The unfair labor practice suit filed this summer, alleges that:

* Harvard discriminated against Bonislawski and Gardin in late March for "engaging in union activity";

* Paul Smith, manager of custodial services for Buildings and Grounds (B & G), "threatened" Bonislawski on April 5 for attending a grievance hearing to represent a worker, quoting Smith as saying, "You better watch your step"; and,

* William Lee, personnel administrator for B & G, "threatened" Gardin for union activity, saying Gardin was told he "could go as far as he wanted to, but could also be terminated,"

University officials, Smith and Lee all strongly denied the unfair labor practice charges this week, saying they only warned Gardin and Bonislawski of leaving work to attend union-related meetings without obtaining the permission of their supervisors--as the union's contract stipulates.

Smith termed the charge against him "outrageous, ludicrous," adding, "It's not my style to threaten anybody." Referring to Gardin's allegation, Lee said this week, "Those things would never have been said by me." One University source said Gardin was called before Lee because he had had a slew of unauthorized absences from work, and "a checkered work history."

Shortly after the union filed its suit with the NLRB, the Board issued a complaint against Harvard, which does not constitute a finding of guilt, but increases the possibility that litigation would be required to resolve the dispute. The NLRB issued the complaint without speaking to Crockett. Powers said, "The NLRB thought I didn't care whether it issued a complaint. It was just a misunderstanding--the NLRB agent misinterpreted a remark of mine."

The NLRB, Powers added, recently reopened its investigation because the agents "realized they hadn't done a thorough job." Powers also said the NLRB issued its complaint only after HUERA amended its original suit. NLRB spokesmen decline comment while the investigation is in progress.

Bonislawski this week charged that the University has obstructed union business. "Harvard agreed it would allow union representatives time to do union business--but it hasn't abided by the settlement," she said, adding, "If the University doesn't allow you the reasonable chance to attend disciplinary hearings as a union rep, you cannot function as a union."

Powers said the University only wants to ensure that union representatives receive permission from supervisors to go to meetings during working hours. Bonislawski responded by saying, "If you have a supervisor who doesn't let you off duty, then a union representative can't do the job. It's a typical union-busting tactic."

Wednesday evening, the union's executive board tentatively reinstated Crockett as president, but voted to deprive the president of exclusive signing rights for union documents, because, one union source said, he "had acted irresponsibly." Crockett reportedly objected to the measure, but from now on, someone besides the union's president will have to sign all official HUERA documents.

HUERA has had a history of being a fragmented union, and some union sources this week said they fear the University will try to capitalize on the latest internal struggle. "It weakens our position, and Harvard knows that," one source said.

Another union source said that because Crockett had sided with the University on the unfair labor practice charge, workers would now be afraid to file grievances. "How can an employee hope to win a case against the University when he has no support from the presidency?" the source asked.

Meanwhile, as union officials trade charges and brand each other as "liars," the University has taken a casual stance toward the unfair labor practice. "It's a crazy position--the union hasn't got a shot at winning, so it's not a very big deal," one Harvard official said.

Gardin, who worked for Crockett in the union's last election held in February of 1979, recalls a conversation he had with Crockett this spring. "We were talking about the University, and Charlie said to me, 'Harvard is too tough--you can't fight 'em, you've gotta join 'em.' I said, 'Why don't you resign then?' He said, 'You just don't understand.'"