Union Contract Should Be Nullified

The workers of Local 254, Harvard's union of custodial workers, are continuing to fight the contract that they recently signed with the University. The new contract offered current workers few advantages and cuts vacation time and sick pay. Wages are frozen for the first 20 months of its duration, and the contract also slashed the pay scales for new employees. But the most serious problem with this contract is not its terms but the manner in which it was approved. Several workers have said that union members had no input in the negotiations with the University. They have also claimed that they were only given 45 minutes to read and discuss a four-page summary of the contract before they were forced to vote on it.

Based on the conditions under which the contract was approved, some of the disgruntled workers from Local 254 have filed a grievance earlier this month with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking them it nullify the contract. They are charging that Cathy Conway, their business agent, represented the union in bad faith.

We urge the NLRB to seriously investigate these charges. Currently, the NLRB is not sure if it has the authority to void the contract based on the procedures of the negotiations and the vote. However, if the NLRB does have the power to nullify the contract, we encourage it to do so.

Voiding the contract and starting contract negotiations again would not necessarily guarantee a new agreement that would provide more generous pay and benefits to members of Local 254. The market pressure of competition with outside contractors that generated the harsh conditions of this contract will still be in effect. The union will probably not gain much more clout in negotiating with Harvard.

However, another round of negotiations would ensure that union workers are well-represented in the process. It would allow them to inform the University of their wishes and allow them to learn of the University's proposed terms of employment well before they have to vote on a contract. Even if Local 254 does not sign a substantially improved agreement, at least the contract will have been approved in a fair and open manner.

Furthermore, if the NLRB voids the contract, it will send a message to employers and union management officials around the nation that workers are not so easily trampled on. The publicity of this case could also help to inform more workers of their rights. As Ray Clark, one of the union shop stewards who brought the complaint before the NLRB, said, "I think if we could let other people know of the behavior of this union, we could discourage others from getting involved with unions [like this one]."

Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, we hope that the University will be more sensitive to its workers in the future. Although University officials should be mindful of the bottom line, they should also take the interests and rights of Harvard employees into consideration and promote fair, forthright labor negotiations.