Harvard Union Reps. Concerned Over Supreme Court Labor Case

A landmark labor case argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday could drastically impact the ways in which unions organize and expand membership, according to legal and labor experts. Officials representing Harvard unions voiced concerns that future organizing efforts could be seriously hindered by the Court’s decision.

Still, the justices’ questions during oral arguments for the case, Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, did not provide any clear indication about how the Court would rule on the legality of certain private agreements between employers and unions.

“The initial reports from the Court are that it was a balanced argument, and it’s hard to predict at this point,” said Harvard Law School professor Benjamin I. Sachs. “This is probably the most important labor case in a generation, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.”

The justices are considering the legality of neutrality agreements, a type of contract between employers and unions. In these agreements, the employer allows the union to function beyond the rights explicitly given by federal law.

Central to this debate is whether or not the allowances exchanged in these agreements can be considered “things of value.” Because the law forbids employers from giving unions money or “things of value,” the agreements will be ruled illegal if the Court accepts the argument that these private contracts between employers and unions are essentially bribes.

According to John T. Trumpbour, research director at the Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program, many in the labor field do not consider these agreements to be illegal but view them as a legitimate means of encouraging collaboration between management and the union.

“[The plaintiff] is trying to make the ‘thing of value’ be a lot more expansive a definition...than the normal definition of outright corruption,” Trumpbour said. “From the standpoint of people in the labor movement, the ‘thing of value’ was if the employer offers a big suitcase of money or a Mercedes to the union.”

If the justices rule that this frequently-used tool is illegal, unions could struggle to organize new members.

“The traditional route to organizing unions doesn’t work, and this is essentially the only way that’s left,” Sachs said. “If the Court were to hold that these agreements are illegal, that they’re felonies, that would have a devastating affect on people’s abilities to organize unions.”

Wayne M. Langley, director of higher education for the Service Employees International Union Local 615, said that the case signifies “another road block in the ability of people to organize and have unions.” These types of neutrality agreements have “been an important part of the labor relations process” in previous SEIU organizing efforts, Langley said.

The ruling could have a significant effect at Harvard for any union that wants to expand membership, though no practices currently undertaken by any Harvard-affiliated unions would be invalidated.

“This could impact any union, anywhere, including Harvard unions, that want to do new organizing...pursuant to an organizing agreement,” Sachs said.

Bill Jaeger, director of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers, said that although the union is not currently engaged in an active campaign to expand membership, HUCTW might be interested in pursuing this type of neutrality agreement with the University should other Harvard employees want to join it in the future.

“Thinking about that kind of situation makes it clear how ridiculous, in a way, the litigation is,” Jaeger said. “The idea that we couldn’t reach an agreement with Harvard to continue acting in the respectful collaborative way...just seems ridiculously restrictive.”

Jaeger said that he, along with many members of HUCTW, would like to see the Court “find neutrality agreements to be perfectly appropriate and legal.”

“It’s a company and a union [being] able to decide to enter into an agreement about how they’re going to treat each other and collaborate and act as partners,” he said.

The justices will likely issue a decision in the spring.

—Staff writer Christine Y. Cahill can be reached at christine.cahill@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @cycahill16

—Staff writer Dev A. Patel can be reached at dev.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @dev_a_patel.