From David Dorsky: [Fwd: Your global e-mail last night]

Subject: Your global e-mail last night
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:13:33 -0400
From: Dorsky,David I. <Dorsky@NSO2.UCHC.EDU>
To: Mohler,William <WMohler@NEURON.UCHC.EDU>

Hi Bill,

I happened to see your global e-mail last night in which you referred to me by name.

You wrote "They [Dorsky and Kreutzer] appear to be the leadership or delegated representatives of the "UCHC-AAUP Faculty Association".

I am not a leader of this group; however, I am a member by virtue of having signed a union authorization card. A number of members participate collectively in the organizing campaign that is leaderless but works with the AAUP advisors from Storrs and the national office of the AAUP. This is a transparent process open to all. The price of admission to the group is the common interest and willingness to support the establishment of a collective bargaining unit for the UCHC faculty. There is, of course, the assumption of honesty and good faith in participation in this collective effort.

I was not a "delegated representative" at the Labor Board meeting. I chose
to be present only as a witness and was not involved in the decision making involved in setting the terms of the election. In fact, the terms of the election were proposed by the director of HR at UCHC, Karen Duffy Wallace. The attorney for the AAUP, Henry Murray, acceded to her terms. I had no direct conversations with the labor board agent, Ken Hampton, or with Karen Duffy Wallace.

All in the room were aware of the fact that absentee balloting is not allowed by the CT state labor board. Absentee balloting had been requested by the union for the elections in 1999 and 2000 and the request was denied. You may be interested to know the main reason for denying absentee balloting at union representation elections. Most bargaining units are quite small and counting of ballots is done in public. If absentee ballots were crucial for deciding the vote, the identity of the absent voter responsible would become apparent, leading to the potential for discriminatory treatment from either side. The Labor Board, not Mr. Hampton, its agent, has decided not to make exceptions for larger bargaining units.

I am not insisting that you publish a retraction of your erroneous assertion that I am a leader and a delegated representative. However, as a responsible member of the academic community, you are probably interested in publishing accurate information, and I wanted to correct your misperception. I hope that your erroneous assertions about me were made in good faith, in that they were unintentional, and that they will not be repeated. If you have any questions relating to the campaign, please feel free to contact me directly and I will make every effort to provide you with unbiased information. The academic community does not benefit from misinformation or innuendo. By innuendo, in this instance, I refer to a common anti-union tactic in which the opposition implies that the union organizing effort is the work of a cabal or a clique under the control or benefiting from an outside organization intent on taking over the bargaining unit. I would ask you to take the ³high road² and refrain from spreading erroneous information, especially over the global e-mail system.

Sincerely and with best regards,

David Dorsky