Subscribe Place Ad Buy Trib Photos Readers' Choice Contests
Jobs Homes Autos Classifieds
Trib Total Media Contact Us
Labor dispute escalates as Pitt declines to comply with subpoena | TribLIVE.com
Education

Labor dispute escalates as Pitt declines to comply with subpoena

Deb Erdley
Deb Erdley
1434189_web1_web-pitt4
The Cathedral of Learning on the University of Pittsburgh campus in Oakland

Relations between officials at the University of Pittsburgh and the leaders of a faculty union drive deteriorated this week after Pitt officials refused to comply with a sweeping subpoena from the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

Pitt faculty representatives filed for a union election in January, following a lengthy organizing drive that went public a year earlier.

When the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board rejected that petition saying organizers failed to obtain endorsements for at least 30 percent of the proposed collective bargaining unit, the United Steelworkers of America cried foul.

Organizers alleged that Pitt officials padded the size of the proposed bargaining unit with several hundred names “including deans and other administrators, graduate student employees, undergraduate students, faculty who haven’t taught at Pitt in years, faculty who are retired, and even a few faculty who are deceased.”

The Labor Relations Board scheduled a July 24 hearing on their appeal and issued a subpoena ordering the university to disclose additional information about Pitt’s faculty to union organizers.

Pitt spokesman Joe Miksch defended the accuracy of Pitt’s decision and its faculty lists. He said the lists included full and part-time faculty, with the exception of those in the school of medicine.

“This sweeping subpoena attempts to shift responsibility onto Pitt to prove that the list is accurate, as the Steelworkers seek thousands of pages of personal information about more than 4,000 faculty members, including payroll data, assignments and disability information. We disagree with this tactic and look forward to following the PLRB process to resolve this matter,” Miksch wrote when asked about union organizers’ complaints.

William Scott, an associate professor of English, said he was not surprised that officials refused to comply with the subpoena.

“It’s clear that (Chancellor Patrick Gallagher) knows a majority of faculty want a union and is willing to do anything to keep us from voting,” Scott said.

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 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.