Charges force postponed vote

After pelting Duke with a series of charges of unfair labor practices, the International Union of Operating Engineers announced last Thursday that the vote to unionize Duke's nurses will be indefinitely postponed.

"The charges are not minuscule in respect to the election," said IUOE representative David Miller. "We felt that we could not have a fair election."

While the union prepares to present its case to the National Labor Relations Board, hospital administrators are growing increasingly frustrated with the drawn-out unionization attempt, which they say has brought many of the hospital's internal affairs to a standstill. Michael Israel, CEO of Duke Hospital, said there is no merit to the union's allegations and that postponing the vote-originally scheduled for June 2 and 3-is merely a strategy.

"We want the election to happen-dragging it out helps no one," Israel said. "[The postponement] is divisive, distracting and something we want to get through.... This is not a process which brings harmony to an organization."

The list of allegations-filed with the NLRB against Duke-includes a series of violations that union officials say would have dissuaded nurses from voting for a union. IUOE representatives charged Duke with soliciting grievances and implementing new benefits to discourage union activity, unlawfully ordering employees not to talk to each other about the union and telling employees that with union representation, they would lose their current benefits and have to negotiate from scratch.

In addition, questions about the size and composition of the group eligible to vote have re-surfaced.

Union officials said that although they thought there would be about 2,000 nurses eligible, Duke's final list named 2,450. Also, the union maintains that 295 members of Duke's list were not actually Duke employees, while 132 worked outside the geographic area designated in an agreement reached last month.

The two sides' lawyers agreed last month to include all registered nurses on Duke's main campus, which encompasses the hospital and the clinics.

Some nurses at the May 25 union meeting, as well as a representative from the Duke Progressive Alliance, suggested that holding the vote in September may help the union by allowing student groups to become involved in the discussions.

Although some nurses were pleased with the prospect of student support, the delay raised new questions for many others.

One nurse pointed out that the pool of voters could be further diluted when a new class of nurses becomes employed at Duke this summer.

Israel pointed out that the NLRB investigation faces another delay: The board cannot proceed until the union submits the affidavits and evidence of its charges.

Miller acknowledged that the next series of proceedings will take more time, but added that he is confident the NLRB will decide in the union's favor.

"We have evidence [that Duke is] going out of bounds," Miller said.

In the meantime, Israel said hospital administrators will continue to walk on eggshells to avoid the possibility of more allegations of unfair labor practices.

"There are questions at meetings that I can't comment on because that could be an unfair labor practice," Israel said.

Although it seems that no one was thrilled by the prospect of indefinitely postponing a process that gets more complicated each week, several nurses said they believe the move is necessary and that it will allow eligible voters more time to make up their minds.

Nurses Dorcas Butler and Elena Martin said at last week's meeting that nurses have a great deal of conflicting information about the union and that many are misinformed.