NLRB Decision Prompts New Anti-Union Letter

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials said yesterday that a hearing on the University's charges against the election day campaign practices of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) will be held in the next eight weeks, but that a final decision in the case would probably come much later.

Encouraged by the Board's July 1 decision to hold the hearing, Harvard administrators stepped up their rhetoric against the union, which they say violated NLRB rules on election day. The union narowly won the May 17 contest, in which 90 percent of the University's support staff voted.

In a letter sent to all 3700 clerical and technical workers late last week, Anne H. Taylor, who heads the University's anti-union efforts, called the election "unfair and invalid" and said HUCTW was not legally entitled to represent any Harvard employees.

HUCTW Director Kris Rondeau could not be reached for comment.

Ronald S. Cohen, the NLRB staff attorney who is acting supervisor of the HUCTW case, said yesterday that the Board is currently trying to schedule a date for the hearing "within four to eight weeks." At that time, an administrative law judge will listen to Harvard present evidence supporting its 13 allegations against the union, he said.

Sometime after the hearing, the judge will issue a written report on the University's objections. If either the union or the University appeals the judge's findings, the case will be sent to the NLRB in Washington for a final decision, Cohen said.

The possibility of an appeal could mean that the union victory will remain on hold well into the fall.

"The regional office [of the NLRB] is saying they could send the case on to Washington," said Taylor, who is special assistant to the vice president for administration. "If that's the case, it could be a lengthy process."

An NLRB official in Washington, Joseph E. Moore, said he could not predict when a final decision in the case might be reached, assuming that the results of the August hearing are appealed to Washington. "It all depends on how complicated the issues are--there's just no way of telling," he said.

Harvard is charging that the union violated NLRB rules on election day by keeping lists of who voted and how, escorting workers to the polls, offering plane fare and transportation assistance to bring pro-union employees to the voting places and electioneering too close to the polling stations.

HUCTW denies the charges, saying it engaged in legal get-out-the-vote efforts. The union won the May 17th election by a 44-vote margin, although if it had received four fewer votes the election would have been litigated under a previous agreement with the University. The election capped a three-year organizing drive by HUCTW and a two-month anti-union campaign waged by the University.

When the NLRB announced late last month that it would hold hearings on the University's allegations, Harvard officials said the decision was an indication that the board considers their charges substantive.

Taylor wrote in the letter to employees that the NLRB decision confirms that Harvard's charges were made witha sound factual and legal basis.

"HUCTW has characterized our objections to theelection as frivolous, ill willed and lacking asound factual or legal basis," Taylor wrote. "Asthe NLRB's action shows, that is not true.