ATHENS, Ohio — United Academics of Ohio University argued in an April 14 filing that the university’s objections to the recent faculty union election, if upheld, would unfairly delay faculty unionization and drastically curtail labor organizing throughout the state.
The State Employee Relations Board released unofficial election results in March that showed that more than 70% of participating OU faculty members voted to unionize, with UAOU as the employee representative. OU objected to those results, however, arguing that the union unlawfully held members-only meetings during its campaign, and that delays in employees receiving their mail-in ballots unfairly tinted the process.
The union responded to those objections in its recent filing, calling the objections “absurd” and “meritless.” The union argued a hearing on the issues would cause an unnecessary delay; it asked SERB to dismiss OU’s objections and certify the union election.
OU, meanwhile, suggested in its objection that SERB conduct a new election.
SERB was initially scheduled to vote on the certification of the OU faculty union election results at its April 17 board meeting.
A representative of SERB declined to “provide any additional information on the scope/procedure of the investigation” into OU’s objections, saying it would be “premature” to do so prior to action by the board.
Objection to member-meetings ‘absurd,’ could cause dire consequences
In its rebuttal to OU’s objections, UAOU called OU’s claim that the union could not hold members-only meetings “absurd.”
If SERB accepted OU’s argument, UAOU wrote, it would “make it impossible for any union to conduct campaigns” by requiring “the Union to invite non-members to every strategic meeting.”
“If the Union was required to allow all bargaining unit members — including anti-union employees — into every strategy meeting and discussion among Union supporters, the pro-union campaign could not implement its campaign strategy,” UAOU wrote. “This would severely burden the Union’s ability to effectively spread its message urging employees to join the Union and to vote for the Union.”
The decision would constitute an “injustice by decimating the Union’s ability to plan and implement its campaign strategy.”
OU’s objection relied on a rule in the Ohio Administrative Code that states, in part, “During organizational or campaign activity, the employer or employee organization(s) may hold meetings to discuss representation or election issues, but attendance must be voluntary and available to all employees in the proposed or determined unit.”
OU said the union violated this rule and obtained an “unfair advantage” by excluding “bargaining-unit employees who may have expressed opposing viewpoints” from its members-only meetings.
UAOU, however, argued the law does not apply to organizational meetings, and that it did hold open meetings pertaining to election issues.
A Feb. 5 meeting OU cited in its objection, UAOU said, “was bifurcated into a Union membership meeting which was limited to members-only, and an election meeting that was open to the whole bargaining unit. The members-only portion discussed internal Union business. The bargaining unit-wide session was held to discuss the election issues in order to comply with OAC.”
UAOU included numerous affidavits from faculty members backing up its description of events.
Cassidy Brauner, an assistant professor of instruction in OU’s Chaddock + Morrow College of Fine Arts, said in her affidavit that the members-only meetings to which OU objected were each intended as an “informational session for people who were organizing.”
If SERB accepts OU’s argument about members-only meetings, the union argued, the rule itself would violate “the Union’s freedoms of speech and association under the First Amendment” and therefore could not be used as grounds to toss out the election vote.
If SERB ruled against UAOU on that point, it could have a chilling effect on labor organizing across the state, the union wrote.
The ruling would “put a thumb on the scale against unions in all future representation elections,” UAOU argued.
Mail-in ballot argument ‘meritless’
OU’s objection also argued that the apparently extensive issues many faculty experienced in obtaining their mail-in ballots — which were sent out by the SERB — tainted the election process because faculty blamed OU for the postal issues.
The UAOU’s response called this argument “meritless because the delays impacted the Union equally.”
UAOU said that “some members blamed the Union just as some blamed the University, and the election had very high turnout despite the issues. Therefore, this Objection should be dismissed.”
In Brauner’s affidavit, she wrote, “I recall a general confusion from a handful of colleagues about if UAOU would be the ones to send out the ballots or if SERB was in charge.” She said UAOU told faculty, correctly, that SERB would be sending out ballots.
In reality, “no party took any action to delay the ballots,” UAOU wrote — so tossing out the election results on these grounds would “punish the employees and the Union for conduct over which they had no control.”
OU Senior Director of Communications Dan Pittman confirmed OU had received UAOU’s response to its objections, but said commenting further would be “premature.”
Let us know what's happening in your neck of the woods!
Get in touch and share a story!
