Officials at New York University Hospitals Center say they have no idea how anti-union literature appeared at the homes of nearly 400 clerical workers days before they narrowly voted against allowing a powerful hospital union to represent them. þþThe literature, which contained material that an arbitrator had barred management from issuing because it was misleading, bore no return address or hint of the sender's identity. It was distributed in envelopes, sealed with surgical tape.þþBut representatives of Local 1199/S.E.I.U., the union that lost the election by 21 votes, said they were convinced that the mailing list and the literature could have only come from someone associated with management. ÿWe know they were absolutely responsible for this mailing,ÿ said Angela Doyle, a union official.þþNot so, said John Harney, the chief operating officer for N.Y.U. Hospitals Center. In an Oct. 29 memo to all clerical employees, he said,ÿWe do not know the origin of these documentsÿ and said management ÿdid not authorize, create, approve or distributeÿ them. þþMichael Chapman, a spokesman for N.Y.U. Hospitals, said that management was no closer to any answers as of yesterday, but was confident that the Oct. 30 election was ÿvalid and fair.ÿ þþÿWe respect the decision that a majority of our clerical workers have made against the union,ÿ he said, ÿand believe the union should respect that decision as well.ÿ þþBesides contesting the election, the union has asked employees to rally this afternoon outside the hospitals to show their support, putting an end to months of relative collegiality that had been on display between management and workers at New York City hospitals. þþThat working relationship was cemented when management and labor lobbied Albany together in late 2001 to pump funds into the health care field to lift wages. þþAnd it was evident in January, when the League of Voluntary Hospitals negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that included a code of conduct for how unions were to be allowed to organize new members. Those rules require both sides to preview any literature with each other for accuracy's sake and to allow an outside arbitrator to resolve disputes. þþN.Y.U. Hospitals was a logical place for the new rules to be tested, with barely a third of its 4,510-person work force unionized. ÿAt most hospitals, it's over 50 to 60 percent,ÿ said Bruce McIver, president of the hospital league. þþAllegations of misconduct by both sides consumed at least 14 conference calls with the arbitrator. But while the union modified campaign materials in accordance with the arbitrator's wishes, N.Y.U. Hospitals did not comply in a timely way, participants in the process say.þþMore recently, N.Y.U. Hospitals' lawyer has questioned the arbitrator's authority, these participants say. On Monday, the union filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan to compel the hospitals to participate in the arbitration. Mr. Chapman said he could not comment since the matter was in litigation. þþSince the code of conduct was ratified, the union has conducted nine drives at other hospitals without igniting the passions that this one has, the union said. At N.Y.U. Hospitals, union representatives said they had collected twice as many signature cards as needed to hold a vote, so they were convinced that the only reason they lost was foul play. þþFor instance, documents show the hospitals' chairman of anesthesiology sent out a letter on Oct. 4 to doctors and administrators noting that the hospitals' anesthesiologists did not accept 1199 insurance. A second letter went out on Oct. 29, at the order of the arbitrator, noting that the insurance was accepted, though it might not be sufficient to cover the entire bill.þþThe union is also angry that on the night of the election, managers celebrated their victory by toasting themselves with Champagne late into the evening. Several waiters at the meeting, at a small administrative office, had to stay late to serve the guests, even though they were among the group that 1199 had sought to organize that day.þþþ
Source: NY Times
