News
The new faculty union argues it violated no laws in response to Ohio University’s objections following the election
By: David Forster
Posted on:
ATHENS, Ohio (WOUB) — A union that recently won a vote to represent Ohio University faculty says it did nothing wrong in holding members-only meetings before the election.
These arguments are the crux of the union’s response to an objection filed by Ohio University after the election.
Just over 70 percent of eligible faculty voted to be represented by United Academics of Ohio University.
A week after the votes were tallied late last month, the university filed an objection with the State Employment Relations Board.
Its core argument is that during the campaign, the union held two meetings restricted to members only, which violated state law.
The law in question says in part: “During organizational or campaign activity, the employer or employee organization(s) may hold meetings to discuss representation or election issues, but attendance must be voluntary and available to all employees in the proposed or determined unit.”
The university focuses its objection on the words “available to all employees.” It argues that because attendance at some meetings was conditional on union membership, these meetings were not available to everyone.
“The Union cannot ‘pick and choose’ whether to include or exclude some bargaining-unit employees for its meetings based on a litmus test of ‘verifying membership at the door,’ the university argues. “The Union must open its meetings to everyone, without conditions. It failed to do so.”
The university says it followed the rules during the campaign, holding meetings open to all faculty who were eligible to join the union, and the union should have to do so as well.
“It is not fair for the Union to conduct ‘closed’ meetings where opposing viewpoints are not permitted, while the University must conduct an ‘open’ meeting where pro-Union employees are given an opportunity to voice their opinions,” the university argues.
The university is calling for an investigation before the union is certified as the exclusive representative for the faculty it would represent.
The union acknowledges in its response filed earlier this week that the meetings referenced by the university were restricted to members only. One of these meetings provided members with an update on negotiations between the union and the university over which faculty the union would represent.
It “did not include campaigning or persuasion,” the union says.
The second meeting was broken into two parts. The first was to discuss internal union business and was limited to members. The second was to discuss election issues and was open to anyone.
“Nobody was denied entry to either meeting,” the union says.
If the law does in fact prohibit the union from holding any members-only meetings during a campaign, then the law itself is the problem, the union argues.
“A union has the right to plan its organizing and election campaigns without requiring input from non-members or anti-union employees,” the union says. “A ruling that requires the Union to invite non-members to every strategic meeting would be absurd and make it impossible for any union to conduct campaigns, but that is the logical conclusion of the University’s argument.”
This, the union argues, would violate its First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.
Prohibiting members-only meetings during a union campaign, the union argues, would be a restriction on speech based on the content of the message — campaign-related issues — and the identity of the speaker — the union.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny and are presumed to be unconstitutional.
To overcome this presumption, any content-based restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means of serving that interest, the court has ruled.
Preventing a union from holding members-only meetings from “the first day of organizing until the conclusion of an election is not the least restrictive means to accomplish any goal, as it would potentially restrict the union’s speech for years,” the union argues.
Union members also have a First Amendment right to associate with other members in the pursuit of their collective interests, the union says. Allowing all employees to attend every meeting, including strategy sessions, would hamstring the union’s ability to run a successful campaign.
“There would be no campaign if employers could send anti-union nonmembers to disrupt every union meeting,” the union says. “It would be impossible for any union to discuss how to counter the employer’s campaign without the employer learning of the union’s strategy.”