College and OCOPE settle NLRB charges

Charges found College did not follow grievence procedure

The College and a union which represents over 180 College employees reached a settlement agreement last week on issues that arose from charges filed against the College last May. Representatives from Oberlin College Office and Professional Employees (OCOPE) and the College reached an agreement under mediation with a representative from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

President Nancy Dye said she was glad to have the issues settled.

The mediation came after OCOPE charged the College with refusal to process grievances, refusal to provide information to the union and not following past procedure during layoffs last year. Both Julie Weir, president of OCOPE and Shelby Warrens, first-vice president, said that filing charges with the NLRB was a last resort. "We weren't getting results from repeated attempts," Weir said.

Director of Human Resources Ruth Spencer said the settlement will change some of the College's practices but will also help the College go forward with different strategies. "We got some direction on some issues," Spencer said. "We got clarification on the Board's perspective on some things."

Warrens said she is hopeful about the effects of the agreement, but that the long-term effects are unclear. "We will have really won something if we don't have to go back to the [NLRB] again," she said.

According to the agreement, the College will now process grievances in the number of days set out in the contract, a practice which both Spencer and union representatives agreed was not happening in the past. Spencer said that when she became director of human resources in November of 1995 there were grievances that were three years old. Spencer also said that now the College knows to process the grievance even if the College does not have all the information it feels it needs.

The agreement also clarified the responsibility of the College to provide information to union members. The College will now provide required information to all union members. Other information will be made available to all members, but the College will not have to send the information to all members.

Weir said that in the past the College was providing information to rank-and-file members of the union, but not leaders. She said that this was a practice common to management that is trying to reduce the power of the union using "divide and conquer" techniques. Spencer said that in this case the College was trying not to waste paper, but the mediator decided providing the union with the information it requests is more important than being efficient.

Additionally the College will be required to recognize past practice in regards to layoffs and reduced department situations. This clause came after the union and College disagreed on the determination of departments in the Library, which effects the way layoffs are conducted. The union wanted the determinations to follow past practice, while Spencer and the College wanted to redefine the departments.

The agreement found that the College must follow past precedent in situations like that.

The union also won four new positions as bargaining unit positions.

Neither side saw the settlement as a clear-cut victory or defeat. Spencer said the settlement negotiations were amicable and that she was very happy to have the charges settled. She also emphasized that the settlement agreement is not the same as a finding of unfair labor practices. If negotiation had been impossible the Board could have decided against the College and the College have faced fines and court charges. "A finding is very undesirable," Spencer said.

Weir said that the Board's initial finding in favor of the union showed that the union's position was correct, and the fact that the issue did not go to court showed that the College may be moving in some positive directions.

Weir is discouraged by the fact that the charges had to be filed with the NLRB in the first place. "You hope in a union-management relationship that you don't always have to run to the NLRB," she said. "If you fully respect your union you are going to provide information, process grievances and acknowledge past practice."

Weir said that since Spencer became director of Human Resources the practices of the College have made some union members wonder if the College is "out to bust the union." She said that a union's job is to serve its members, but that the College was making it difficult to do that by not processing grievances and not providing information. "One way to hurt the union is to make [the members] feel that their union can't do anything for them," Weir said.

Spencer said that she wants to support the unions within the constraints the College faces. "It is our goal to be able to work with the unions in making the work setting as beneficial as we can make it for employees, recognizing the budget constraints and the need for flexibility of employees that meets the needs of the institution," Spencer said.

The settlement agreement follows several previous stages in the procedures of the NLRB. In May, Warrens filed the charges against the college, and then in June a field representative of the NLRB visited Oberlin to collect depositions and information from OCOPE. The College then responded to those charges. From that information the NLRB decided whether to issue a charge and then whether to attempt to settle the issue or take the College to court. In this case the Board issued a charge in October and decided to attempt to settle the issue with mediation.

"As long as there is room to negotiate and compromise you want to do that," Spencer said. "It is an opportunity to reconcile these differences."

The settlement agreement was mediated by a representative from the NLRB at the Board's offices in Cleveland. Spencer said that the negotiations literally go over every word in the agreement. "It probably matters most to the people at the table," she said.