NLRB is Key to Unionization

Harvard's allegation that in this May's union election workers were influenced by illegal union activities has brought into the spotlight the National Labor Relatioins Board (NLRB)--the federal panel which, in certifying all new unions, rules on such complaints. But some would say that in the many years of union organizing at Harvard, the board has always been a key player.

This year alone, the NLRB has been responsible for setting the election date for Harvard's campus-wide election, determining who could participate and running the election and counting ballots, in addition to hearing the University's complaints about the election.

A ruling by the NLRB on any of these mechanical questions can cast a long shadow. When the board ruled in 1984 that a union could not organize support staff in one area, but must expand its campaign to include the 3300 workers throughout the University, it meant a four-year delay until the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) could petition for a referendum.

In addition, according to the union, the process of appearing before the NLRB--no matter what the outcome--can be detrimental because of the delay. The longer it takes to resolve an appeal, the more it jeopardizes the union's base of support--which dissipates with time. The union and the University spent more than a year before the board in arguments that led to the 1984 decision.

The charges before the NLRB now are the most serious ever filed. The board is currently investigating the conduct of both sides in the May election, and will decide whether to nullify the results and call for a new election or simply affirm the results. The board could reach a decision within a month, or it could decide to conduct further hearings, postponing union certification for an indefinite time period.

The NLRB was established in 1935--an era of landmark labor legislation--to act as the national mediator in worker disputes. The board is intended to act as a non-partisan lawyer, judge and arbiter in any legal dispute between labor and management, although the current board is recognized by labor experts as a politically conservative body.

The NLRB's national board has five members, appointed by the president, who serve in staggered terms of five years each. In order to completely reconstruct the NLRB a president must hold office for two terms, so there is usually a political balance on the Board.

However, labor experts say that during his eight years as chief executive, President Reagan has been able to completely reconstruct the Board with his appointees. They describe its current incarnation as conservative.

"By and large, labor has wanted to avoid the board at all costs recently," says Anne Nelson, a professor at Cornell University's School of Industrial Labor Relations. "There is usually too much delay, which is bad for unions, and the decisions they make don't favor labor."

In past years, the board was more favorable disposed to labor's side, the labor expert said, and would act more quickly when making its decisions.

The history of Harvard bears out Nelson's reading of the board's sympathies during the last decade and a half.

In 1974, when the union first petitioned for an election in the Medical Area, the University contested the size of group of workers, saying that a union should have to organize support staff all over campus.

The NLRB ruled for the University, but the union appealed the decision. In 1976 the national Board agreed to review its regional decision, and in 1977 they ruled that the union could hold an election in the Medical Area.

In 1983, the third time the union petitioned for an election, the University asked the board to reconsider its previous decision. It did so, and over-turned its 1977 ruling.

Although the NLRB is supposed to be a non-political body, labor expensive attribute the overturned decision, which blocked an election and diluted the union's base support, to the Reagan administration's NLRB appointees.

Because the national board is a court of appeals, however, few labor disputes reach the national level. While the regional offices of the NLRB are expected to adhere to the precedents of the national board, they "don't tend to have an image of leaning one way or the other," according to Professor David Kuechle, a labor expert at the Graduate School of Education.

Robert Fuchs, the current director of the Boston regional office, for example, has held his position for more than 20 years. And it is Fuchs who will hear the latest round of arguments between the University and HUCTW.