From Ed Marth: FW: UCHC Election

Bill:

It does not seem that the election will be revisited, but I thought that the following might be of interest.

Ed

From: Henry F. Murray [mailto:hfmurray@lapm.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Ed Marth
Subject: UCHC Election

Dear Ed,

    You asked me about the reason the State Board of Labor Relations did not permit absentee ballots in the recent election among faculty at the UCHC.  Either at the election conference or immediately there after, the Board's assistant agent Ken Hampton explained to the parties (the University and the AAUP) that neither the state statute nor the agency's regulations permitted the use of absentee ballots in representation elections.  The Board's rule is that to cast a ballot an eligible voter needed to be present at the polling site.  That is the reason they were not used during the UCHC balloting.  The Union expressed no opposition to the use of such ballots during any conversation with the Board on the arrangements for the election.  The Board's decision that absentee ballots could not be used was one that affected both supporters and opponents of the unionization drive equally. 

Henry F. Murray, Esq.
Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly P.C.
557 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut   06105
860.233.9821
860.570.4635 [direct]
860.232.7818 [fax]
hfmurray@lapm.org
web: www.lapm.org
 

Information contained in this document may be protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges.  It is strictly
confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient identified above.  If you are not the intended recipient, reading, copying or
distributing this message is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete
this message in its entirety.  Thank you.