An Appealing Decision

LAST year Harvard argued against taking a neutral stance in the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) election. The administration, appealing to fairness, said it had a right to tell workers the opposing arguments to a union.

Last May, when the union won, Harvard appealed the vote. The administration said it wanted to make sure that the election was run fairly.

Last week an administrative law judge upheld the election victory. The decision found that the union did not coerce employees. The University could show no evidence that it did during testimony this summer. In fact, even if HUCTW did what Harvard challenged--keeping track of pro-union voters--it would not have violated election rules. Judge Joel Harmatz harshly condemned Harvard for taking action that "transcends what might lightly be dismissed as an aggressive adversarial approach."

Harvard has the legal right to appeal this decision. But it has no moral reason left. In the past, the University argued in favor of fairness; now the election has been deemed fair. Yet Harvard is still fighting.

The day after the ruling came out, the administration called it "unjudicial." Now that the University can no longer challenge the union victory on the grounds of fairness, it is attacking the deliverer of justice. This shows what critics suspected all along--that Harvard's arguments in favor of fairness were simply a veiled attempt to defeat the union.

THE ruling has been handed down. Harvard rarely loses; when it does, it ought to face the facts. The union won, Harvard lost.

Harvard fought the four year campus-wide organizing drive all along the way--marshalling supervisors, top administrators and President Bok in the effort. It's time to heal the divisions, not exacerbate them with an appeal.

If the University choses to appeal the decision, it will take its case before a five-member National Labor Relations Board panel, a pro-employer group more likely to side with Harvard. Still, the national panel rarely overturns a judge's decision, especially such a harshly worded one.

An appeal would send yet another hostile signal to the employees. First, the employees voted for the union; then Harvard attempted to reject their choice. Now that a federal judge has confirmed the union victory, the University owes it to employees to respect that decision and show a willingness to negotiate a contract.

An appeal is a clear attempt to stave off the union's momentum. Labor experts say that an appeal would drag out the process for at least a year; a delay this long would inevitably demoralize workers who have been expecting representation and contract negotiation. Awareness of union issues dropped in the five months between the election and the first appeal, and a longer delay could only discourage worker participation. The University could lose the appeal, but still win the war.

Harvard should have listened to the support staff at the May election. At the very least, it ought to pay attention to the judge now.