Skip to main content

Updated: Objections Made to Harvard Graduate & Undergraduate Student Unionization Vote


A few weeks ago, I had pointed readers to a unionization election in which Harvard graduate and undergraduate student research and teaching assistants were to decide whether to form a union.  In late December, it was announced that after several challenges had been made to some of the ballots, the announcement of the results of the election would be delayed.  Interesting to note that although the results were "too close to call", it initially appeared that 1,456 students voted "no" while 1,272 voted "yes".  However, since the number of challenged ballots remains great than the margin of vote that decided the election, no official announcement has been made.

On December 30, Harvard student union organizers filed an objection to the election on the grounds that Harvard may have prevented eligible students from participating in the election.  In essence, it has been alleged that the voter list provided by Harvard for the election may have excluded hundreds of eligible voters.  If true, this could result in a new vote taking place.

Not to be outdone, Harvard also filed an objection and pointed to a single vote that was not counted because the voter wrote on the ballot.  Harvard has taken the position that the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") should count this vote.

At this point, the NLRB will hold hearings on the objections, and depending upon the ruling on the objections, a new vote could be conducted.  For those expecting a quick resolution to this one, it looks like we will be waiting for a while longer.  Stay tuned.


For additional information:  http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/12/30/union-organizers-file-objection/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more