Duquesne University says NLRB shouldn't oversee its labor issues
Duquesne University said it has filed a motion with the National Labor Relations Board challenging NLRB jurisdiction over the university as a religious institution and its labor affairs. In the motion, Duquesne seeks to withdraw from its agreement to allow the agency to oversee an election by part-time faculty who want to organize under the United Steelworkers. In May, Duquesne officials reached an agreement with the United Steelworkers calling for an NLRB ballot of part-time or so-called adjunct faculty who seek to form a bargaining unit. The agreement called for the NLRB to supervise a mail ballot of prospective members of the bargaining unit, beginning June 22 through July 9. In a press release this morning, Duquesne officials said the school asserts that it qualifies for a religious exemption from the jurisdiction of the NLRB. "Our Catholic identity is at the core of who we are and everything we do as an institution," said Bridget Fare, university spokesperson. "Our mission statement proclaims that Duquesne serves God by serving students. Those words are lived out every day on our campus in very real ways in every part of the university." A union spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. Duquesne, founded and owned by the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, said other Catholic universities have filed similar challenges, some of which are under review. The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Lasallian Association of College and University Presidents and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities have joined in filing an amicus brief with the NLRB in support of these challenges to the NLRB's jurisdiction over Catholic institutions.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.