Graduate student union organizers file unfair labor charges against Pitt | TribLIVE.com
Regional

Graduate student union organizers file unfair labor charges against Pitt

Deb Erdley
1105201_web1_web-pitt4

Organizers who sought to unionize graduate student workers at the University of Pittsburgh said the university’s hardball tactics during a union election last month prevented “free and fair” balloting.

In a complaint filed Wednesday, the United Steelworkers alleged Pitt engaged in unfair labor practices and asked the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to set aside the results of recent balloting and order a new election.

The PLRB ruled that union vote, held Apr. 15-18, was inconclusive after organizers challenged 153 ballots cast in the election, which resulted in 675 votes for the union and 712 against. USW spokeswoman Jess Broomell said the ballot issue remained unresolved as the union filed charges for the graduate student workers.

Graduate student workers 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.

About 2,000 Pitt graduate teaching assistants and researchers were eligible to participate in last month’s union vote, which capped a three-year union drive at the university’s Oakland campus.

The USW’s complaint alleges that Pitt administration election watchers asked to see the IDs of those voting, requested each person to say and spell their name before marking them off the watcher’s list, and ultimately compiled an independent list of those who voted. Organizers charged that such actions were intended to intimidate voters and potential voters.

Pitt officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Pitt spokesman previously dismissed allegations of voter intimidation, saying the university merely “worked to educate students by providing facts and encouraging all to vote regardless of their choice.”

In addition to asking for a new vote, union organizers asked the PLRB to order Pitt officials to post a document conceding the illegality the school’s conduct and affirming the rights of graduate student employees to vote without coercion in a union election.

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

Categories: Local | Regional
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.