University Tactics Uncertain After Union Ruling

At each major step in its campaign to represent the University's 3400 support staff members, the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) has accused University administrators of using anti-union tactics to deny employees their legitimate right to representation.

The union has accused Harvard of being "the worst anti-union employer around," claiming that since last March--when HUCTW first requested an election--the University has done all it could to prevent unionization.

But administrators say that the tactics which HUCTW calls anti-union are merely the attempts of an employer trying to assure that when a support staff union is certified and operative, it will represent a legitimate choice made a majority of the employees.

The seven months since HUCTW sought a campus election have featured a clash between these conflicting interpretations time after time.

With last week's sharply worded ruling against Harvard by a judge appointed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the University's right to appeal and HUCTW's right to speedy certification will again be at odds.

And, according to labor experts, each time the University challenges HUCTW, their position seems more like an anti-union tactic than an appeal to ensure the sanctity of a union election.

"Up to this point, the union-University record looked pretty balanced," said Business School labor expert Charles Heckscher. "With the judge's decision, public opinion takes a swing against the University, and now they are on the defensive."

Although the battle over organizing Harvard's clerical and technical workers is now nearly 17 years old, only in recent months has HUCTW had the support to call for a campus-wide election.

Last March, the union announced that it had the majority support of workers for an election. Organizers began an immediate campaign to urge the University not to delay the timing of the election.

In the weeks that followed, University officials said they would not agree to an election date until administrators had determined precisely which employees were eligible to vote, a process which they said might take time.

HUCTW used public support to pressure Harvard to "negotiate not litigate," accusing the University of stalling the election as a tactic in an anti-union campaign.

Labor experts said that the two-month lag time between HUCTW's announcement of support for a vote and the election was typical. But the union's immediate agitation against Harvard--about what it termed prompt action on the election--would linger through all subsequent negotiations and hostilities between the two sides.

After the election date had been set, the union began a highly publicized campaign for Harvard to remain "neutral" on the question of unionization until the May election date.

HUCTW supporters said that in order to be neutral, the University should not discuss the campaign with any of the support staff. They claimed that any discussions between employer and employee would be manipulative.

But the University argued that they had a responsibility to present a different view about unionization than the one HUCTW organizers promoted, saying that an unbiased presentation is neutral under the law.

The union aimed much of its rhetoric at President Bok--who as a law professor helped author a number of pro-labor books. In the process, a number of articles in the national press were written about Bok and his apparent switch on the issue of organized labor.

Labor experts at the time said, however, that the University was acting within the law, and that HUCTW was asking for Harvard to behave in an unprecedented way during an employee union election.

After the union won the right to represent the support staff in collective bargaining by a narrow 44-vote margin, the University challenged the election, claiming that HUCTW organizers were guilty of illegal electioneering on election day.

The union called Harvard's appeal an anti-union tactic, accusing them of using the delay to take advantage of summer employee turnover--which is near 40 percent--to weaken the union. If Harvard had won its appeal the vote would have been retaken.

In this battle of rhetoric, the University said that it had an obligation to the staff members who had not voted for the union--which, including those who did not vote at all, was more than 50 percent of the staff--to oppose the election if HUCTW organizers had intimidated employees to vote.

Labor experts again said that although delays of this sort are a common anti-union tactic, if the University had evidence that the union was guilty of unfair labor practices, the challenge was not unreasonable.

However, an NLRB judge ruled on Monday that the union was not guilty of illegal campaigning on election day, saying the vote was valid and the union should be certified.

In his ruling, Administrative Judge Joel A. Harmatz concluded that the University's appeal was unreasonable, calling portions of Harvard's charges "frivolous and argumentative."

The University had charged the union with illegally keeping lists of employees who voted and how they cast their votes, surveillance and campaigning in the polling areas and providing discriminatory transportation to the polls.

Harmatz, said that the University's charges were insufficient to overturn a vote, and that its witnesses did not support the charges they made.

Harmatz said in his decision that he hoped the University would not appeal the case to the NLRB because it had no merit.

Although the University has not decided yet whether to object, immediately after Harmatz's decision was announced, Vice President for Finance Robert H. Scott said Harvard did not agree with the substance of the judge's ruling.

Anne H. Taylor, the University's director of human resourses, agreed with Scott, adding that at times Harmatz's language in the decision was "unjudicial."

Currently, Bok is deciding whether Harvard will appeal, and HUCTW has launched another campaign to swing public opinion against the University, by accusing them of trying to delay a support staff union.

Thursday, more than 150 HUCTW supporters held a vigil in front of Bok's home to encourage a speedy decision. Student supporters of the union have pressed an Undergraduate Council commitee to author a resolution asking Bok not to appeal the decision. And the union has encouraged community members to write and call Bok, asking him to make a quick decision to go ahead with contract negotiations.

The union's reaction to this step in the campaign is similar to what it has been at other crucial tactical moments: mobilize public opinion to pressure the University.

Before this juncture, the adminstration has taken a strictly legal interpretation of its actions. But labor experts say that at this stage the University will be taking a step in a more clearly anti-union direction if they choose to appeal the ruling.

"It does seem to be a turning point in terms of the University conduct in the case," Heckscher said.