ATHENS, Ohio — The State Employee Relations Board on Wednesday officially certified the Ohio University faculty union, dismissing OU’s objections to the recent decision of its faculty. OU has 15 days from the order to appeal the decision.
Based upon an investigation by an administrative law judge, the SERB found “insufficient evidence” to justify setting aside the union election results.
SERB’s certification paves the way for contract negotiations between the university and United Academics of Ohio University, the faculty union affiliated with the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers.
“We’re really excited to be certified officially and … to be moving on to the next step and hopefully coming to the bargaining table with Ohio University soon,” said Rachel Terman, an assistant professor of sociology and union organizer.
More than 70% of participating OU faculty members voted to unionize in March.
OU objected to the results, arguing that the union unlawfully held members-only meetings during its campaign, citing a provision in the Ohio Administrative Code. OU also argued that delays in employees receiving their mail-in ballots unfairly tinted the process.
The union, in its response, called those two claims “absurd” and “meritless,” respectively. The union warned that a finding that the union could not hold members-only meetings during its campaign could severely hamper labor organizing across the state.
According to an SERB representative, the administrative judge who investigated OU’s objection was Ray Geis — who appeared to agree with the union’s position.
In an opinion attached to the SERB order, Geis wrote that a decision in OU’s favor on the issue of members-only meetings “would likely prohibit union members and employers from meeting exclusively during the period from the petition for representation through the election at all.”
Under Ohio law, public employees have a right to organize unions. Geis wrote that the provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code cited by OU “must not be read to conflict with the Revised Code provision they amplify,” which guarantees that right.
Geis also determined that OU did not have evidence for its claim that mail-in ballot issues shifted the election in the union’s favor.
“OU provides little evidence to support such a sweeping argument beyond the bare allegation,” Geis wrote.
Even if OU’s arguments were accepted, Geis wrote, these issues would not be sufficient grounds to overturn the union election results because OU does not demonstrate that its cause was significantly harmed in the campaign.
Setting aside the results of a union election “is never intended to be a punishment; it is designed to restore free choice,” Geis wrote. “Here, there is no substantial showing of coercion, only the allegation of the violation of a rule which, even if established, did not credibly limit employee free choice in this case.”
“Setting aside the election is simply not warranted,” Geis concluded.
OU Senior Director of Communications Dan Pittman said OU is “currently reviewing the resulting Board Order in order to appropriately assess next steps.” He did not say whether OU intends to appeal the decision.
Let us know what's happening in your neck of the woods!
Get in touch and share a story!
