Duquesne adjuncts' ballots impounded
The National Labor Relations Board has impounded the ballots in a union-organizing effort by adjunct faculty at Duquesne University, pending the board's decision on an appeal by the university.
Robert Chester, director of the Pittsburgh office of the NLRB, said on Tuesday that the ballots - which were scheduled to be counted that day - will remain in a safe, pending a decision from board headquarters in Washingtonregarding the appeal.
“We are disappointed by this decision,” said Dan Kovalik, general counsel for the United Steelworkers, which the adjuncts hoped to organize under. “We stand by the position that Duquesne, having signed an election stipulation, is subject to the election process and must live with the outcome of the vote by the adjuncts. We will continue to fight for the right of the adjuncts to have their voice heard through a completed board election.”
“We regard the decision to impound the ballots as an appropriate response to the board's review of our motion,” said Duquesne University spokeswoman Bridget Fare. “We continue to maintain our position that we are exempt from the jurisdiction of the NLRB as a religious institution.”
The university agreed in May to have the agency oversee a mail-in ballot by adjunct - or part-time - faculty seeking to organize as the Adjuncts Association of the United Steelworkers.
Duquesne officials later filed a petition seeking to withdraw from the process and asking to be exempted from NLRB oversight on the grounds that it is a religious institution. Although the NLRB regional office in Pittsburgh denied the petition, the Catholic university appealed the decision to the agency's Washington office, which has yet to issue a ruling.
Adjunct faculty members at Duquesne have said they are seeking pay equity, access to health-care benefits and job security.
Show commenting policy
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 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.