UCHC faculty discussion: Hospital Merger & AAUP: [Fwd: From Bill Mohler: Phone call with Ken Hampton at the Labor Relations Board 860-263-6860, 10/15/09, 10:13 am.]

All contacts that I have found regarding LRB voting are found below.
Please contact me if you have any questions about this info.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	From Bill Mohler: Phone call with Ken Hampton at the Labor Relations Board 860-263-6860, 10/15/09, 10:13 am.
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:14:20 -0400
From:	Mohler,William <WMohler@NEURON.UCHC.EDU>

Dear Faculty:

I called Ken Hampton (Kenneth.Hampton@ct.gov , 860-263-6860), who will be handling our unionization vote, to ask him about details that have been under discussion among some faculty. Of particular concern is the disenfranchisement of certain classes of faculty who will be either traveling or working off-site on November 17 and 18, the days of the scheduled vote.

On the issue of absentee ballots: After an initial refusal to put a statement in writing, followed by consultation off-line (ostensibly with the commissioner), Ken sent me the following statement by email:

Subject:     Telephone request for information
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:43:42 -0400
From:         Hampton, Kenneth <Kenneth.Hampton@ct.gov>
To:         Mohler,William <WMohler@NEURON.UCHC.EDU>

In answer to your telephone inquiry of 10/15/09, please be advised that the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations does not, and has never utilized absentee ballots for union elections.

Note that the future tense is not used here, although I see that as little reason for optimism regarding an easy change of policy. Still, this is the official statement at the moment.

On the issue of which officials at UCHC made the agreement on dates/times/duration of the vote:
Ken Hampton said that Karen Duffy Wallace (KWALLACE@ADP.UCHC.EDU , 860-679-4588) in the UCHC HR department made the agreement with the AAUP and the CSLRB on the dates, times, and location of the voting.
I (Bill Mohler) do not recall ever hearing from Ms. Wallace by phone, letter, email, or in person about my preference or needs in scheduling the election.

Has any faculty member discussed the issue with her? Any faculty who has an actual conflict?

On the question of where statutes and regulations that determine the voting policy are to be found:
Ken directed me to the following web resources.

State Employee Relations Act
http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/sera5-270.htm
    Statutes:
    http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/stat5-270.pdf
    Regulations (see excerpt above):
    http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/sera-regs.htm

Summaries of Decisions for SERA
http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/Summ-SERA.htm
The most recent Board Decision on SERA statutes or regulations was in August 2005.

On the question specifically of voting procedures and exceptional ballots, I find only these passages:

SERA Regulations: http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/sera5-270.htm

Sec. 5-273-19. Challenged ballots

At any election, if the right of an employee to vote is challenged by the Board or any party to the proceedings, the employee shall be permitted to vote, but his ballot shall be sealed by him in a separate envelope provided for such purpose and the employee shall then deliver the envelope to the Agent or person duly designated by the Board to conduct the election, who shall deliver the challenged ballot to the Board for determination, provided, if the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the result of the election, no determination with respect to them shall be made.

(Effective May 7, 1980)

Sec. 5-273-20. Procedure following elections; challenges and objections

(a) Upon the conclusion of any election or elections, the Board or its Agent or a person designated by the Board to conduct the election shall prepare a report as to the result of the election, or elections and, in cases where the right of an employee to vote has been challenged and the challenged ballots are sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the report shall contain a plain statement of the grounds for the challenge. The Agent shall cause this report to be served upon the parties.

(b) Within five (5) days thereafter, any party who intends to make an objection shall serve upon all other parties, with proof of service, and file with the Board an original and four (4) copies of objections to the election or elections or to the report thereon. The objections shall contain a plain statement of the grounds of objection. The Board may, either with or without a hearing, make its determination with respect to the objections or to any challenged ballots, provided that if the Board finds any such objection presents a substantial or material issue of fact or law it shall hold a hearing thereon.

(Effective May 7, 1980)

They do not discuss absentee ballots, but do define a class of ballots that can be held for counting after the main vote is complete. To be clear, there is nothing in either statutes or regulations that prohibits absentee voting. However, it is the long-standing adopted policy of the LRB, which Ken Hampton suggested is to prevent vote tampering. He said this is especially critical when the vote involves more than one union; we do not have that concern in this ballot. Policies can be changed by decisions without legislative approval.

Contact at UCHC HR:

Karen Duffy Wallace
KWALLACE@ADP.UCHC.EDU
860-679-4588

Contacts at CSLRB:

Ken Hampton
Kenneth.Hampton@ct.gov
860-263-6860

Commissioner Patricia Mayfield
patricia.mayfield@ct.gov
(860) 263-6000 (main number)

Finally, of interest concerning past CSLRB decisions regarding UCHC faculty unionization:

University of Connecticut Health Center, Decision No. 3694 (5/14/99): The Union filed a petition to represent a proposed bargaining unit consisting of the full-time medical school faculty at the University of Connecticut Health Center. The Health Center objected to the petition on the grounds that the faculty were managerial employees pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 5-270(g) and the United States Supreme Court decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 662 (1980). The Health Center also argued that a separate faculty unit was inappropriate pursuant to Section 5-275(b) of the State Employee Relations Act (SERA). After a lengthy hearing, the Labor Board concluded that the medical school faculty were not "managerial employees" as defined by Section 5-270(g) of the SERA, because they did not play a major role in the administration of collective bargaining agreements or in major personnel decisions. Because Section 5-270(g) establishes the criteria to determine the managerial status of state employees, the Board did not find Yeshiva controlling. Finally, the Labor Board determined that Section 5-275(b) did not mandate a single unit for all faculty, and as a result the Labor Board could exercise its discretion to determine whether more than one faculty unit would be appropriate. The Labor Board issued a direction of election for all full-time faculty.

State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Decision No. 3592 (4/20/98): The Union and five individual complainants alleged that the Employer had retaliated and discriminated against them by engaging in a variety of actions. While the Labor Board found evidence of personal animus between certain supervisors and the complainants, there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the complaint was dismissed. [Appeal dismissed, Amadeo et al. v. State Board of Labor Relations et al., CV98-492624 (J.D. New Britain, 7/21/99, Hartmere, J.): In consolidated cases (Decision Nos. 3592, 3335) the Plaintiffs, individual complainants in the Board proceeding, claimed on appeal that the Labor Board erred in dismissing their complaints against their Union and the University of Connecticut Health Center. First, the Plaintiffs argued that the Labor Board applied the wrong legal standard to determine that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. Next, the Plaintiffs asserted that the record did not support the Labor Board’s conclusion that the contract had not been repudiation by the Health Center. Finally, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Health Center illegally destroyed documents and the Labor Board erred by finding to the contrary. The court determined that substantial evidence on the record supported the Labor Board’s conclusions regarding the allegations against the Health Center. The court further concluded that the Labor Board applied the correct legal standard to assess the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation.]

--
William A. Mohler

Associate Professor Dept. of Genetics and Developmental Biology University of Connecticut Health Center MC-3301 263 Farmington Ave. Farmington, CT 06030-3301 wmohler@neuron.uchc.edu Mobile: (860) 985-2719 alt. mobile: (860) 331-8514 skype: wmohler Office: (860) 679-1833, room E2029 Lab: (860) 679-1834, room E2032 Fax: (314) 689-1833 G&DB dept. ofc.: (860) 679-8350 G&DB dept. fax : (860) 679-8345 http://genetics.uchc.edu/Faculty/Mohler/Mohler.html
P Think before you print

--
William A. Mohler

UCHC faculty discussion: Hospital Merger & AAUP

Thursday, November 19, 2009

[Fwd: From Bill Mohler: Phone call with Ken Hampton at the Labor Relations Board 860-263-6860, 10/15/09, 10:13 am.]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Useful Links:

Blog Archive

Followers