Thus, they reasoned that it could well be late 1967 or early 1968 before bargaining sessions with Harvard got underway. This would mean a time span of approximately a year and a half between the technical expiration date of the BGMA's last contract and the beginning of the bargaining for a new contract. The union would be able to get only the smallest pay settlements retroactive to the last contract because of the great time span. Thus, they felt that Harvard was operating primarily out of economic motives and not out of consideration for its employees in insisting upon a state-run election.

The union officers also could not understand why Harvard was not willing to accept the results of the December 7, 1966, merger vote as sign of the intent of the BGMA's membership, nor could they understand why Harvard was unwilling to hold its own election to select a bargaining agent for the BGMA.

An Administration official once explained that standard labor policy forbad an involved party, such as an employer or a union, from making the decision about disputed representation, no matter how small the dispute. The machinery of the state labor relations board which had already been engaged by one of the disputing unions was, he said, the proper machinery to settle this type of dispute. It was, he noted, the method that had been used for nearly 30 years to settle similar disputes at Harvard. Unfortunately, there was little communication between the Administration and the BGMA membership until a strike vote had been taken and positions had hardened. And equally unfortunately no one in the union was asking the Administration for an explanation.

Especially galling to the BGMA membership was Harvard's recognition of the LPIU as the bargaining agent for the 34 Printing Office employees. They did not see any difference between their move to affiliate with the BCMC and the printing employees' affiliation with the LPIU. As negotiations between the University and the LPIU began to falter, however, many BGMA members grew more convinced that Harvard, underneath it all, was really antiunion.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Labor Relations Board, in late April, conducted three days of public hearings on the BGMA-BSEIU-BCMC-Harvard dispute.

The Massachusetts State Labor Relations Board has binding jurisdiction only over cases arising from "industry and commerce." Thus, Harvard, as a non-profit organization is not bound by any of the state board's decisions or rulings. Harvard's lawyers, the Boston firm of Ropes & Gray, mentioned at the hearing's outset that Harvard was not waiving any of its rights.

To most BGMA people this meant only that Harvard had given forewarning of its intention to renege if the results of the election were not pleasing to the University. To their allies, the BCMC officers, Harvard's statement was a clear indication that the University intended to use legal means to destroy the effectiveness of an election--an election which the BCMC said it was sure it would win.

The Worcester Case

Not long ago, one of the BCMC's component unions, the International Union of Operating Engineers (AFL-CIO) (which has a branch at Harvard) won a State Board election to represent some workers at the Worcester (Mass.) Hospital. The Hospital took the state labor relations board to court. In a decision which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld, a Superior Court set aside the election on the grounds that the state board had no jurisdiction with a non-profit institution.

The state labor relations board expects to draw up a ballot for the Harvard case soon (besides the BSEIU and the BGMA-BCMC, a small group of dissident BGMA members seeking to remain independent has asked to be placed on the ballot as the Buildings and Grounds Maintenance Association) and conduct an election by mid-July. But Donn Berry, secretary-treasurer of the BCMC, says his group might not participate unless "We get a written guarantee from Harvard that the election results are final and binding."

"You get a pat on the back and a big smile, 'Oh, we don't operate like that!' from Harvard," Berry says, "well, we want more than just a pat on the back and a big smile."

One impartial observer who followed the hearings says, however, that the Harvard statement was more a pro forma gesture rather than document of intent. He feels certain from observing the hearings that it is Harvard's intention to bargain with the union that truly represents the BGMA workers.

The deterioration of talks between Harvard and the LPIU further strengthened anti-Harvard feeling among BGMA members, especially since the LPIU, which has a history of almost no strikes, was beginning to talk about striking the University.

By early May when the LPIU voted to strike, BGMA men began to talk about other grievances besides the recognition of their bargaining. One heard more and more talk of poor working conditions, threats, overbearing, bosses, and intimidation. In mid-May, the Buildings and Grounds Maintenance Association membership authorized a strike against the University.

The printers' strike ended early this week with a settlement both sides praised. But as of yesterday, the BGMA men were still out trying to force the University into recognizing the BCMC as their bargaining agent. Whether the strikers, who have said they will on "two hours notice" participate in an election, will participate in the state one without a legal guarantee from Harvard remains to be seen