Labor Relations Board to hear objections in Pitt graduate workers union election |

Labor Relations Board to hear objections in Pitt graduate workers union election

Deb Erdley

The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board will hold a hearing Tuesday to weigh unfair labor practice charges and objections the United Steelworkers filed in conjunction with a union election last month among University of Pittsburgh graduate student workers.

Graduate student organizers charged that Pitt officials acted illegally to influence the outcome of last month’s union election.

Pitt officials said the university encouraged more than 2,000 graduate student research and teaching assistants eligible to participate in the election to vote, but did nothing wrong.

A preliminary tally of the results of the election showed 675 votes for the union and 712 against it, with 153 ballots under challenge.

The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board ruled the election inconclusive, pending a resolution of the organizers’ charges.

The vote capped a three-year organizing drive by graduate student workers who were attempting to organize under the auspices of the USW’s Academic Workers Association. The group previously conducted successful organizing drives among part-time faculty at Robert Morris, Point Park and Duquesne universities.

Union organizers want the state Labor Relations Board to set aside the election results and direct a new election.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.