Salome v Yale: The Outcome▼
A whimper or a bang?
The case was filed with and accepted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in May of 1996.
The first decision on the case by the NLRB came on November 27, 1996. The NLRB deferred its own processing of the complaint and ordered the University and the labor union, Local 34, to return to the contractual grievance-arbitration procedures of the (much violated) labor contract, procedures that both the University and Local 34 had dropped and ignored.
However, despite the NLRB’s deferral, its power explicitly backed HS. Peter B. Hoffman, the NLRB Regional Director, went on to say that the NLRB would resume the case if Yale acted inconsistently with its stated willingness to proceed to arbitration, if it (or, presumably, the Union) dragged its feet, or if, in the end, HS felt the arbitration had been unfair.
It was only the weight of the NLRB — and its later intervention as Yale stalled even these proceedings — that made Yale and the Union take up the case as they were contractually obligated to have done. Under this pressure, the case was settled by the parties before reaching arbitration.
Follow the links below for the NLRB charge, the text of the settlement, some explanations, and — new to this edition — behind-the-scenes maneuvers unknown to the official negotiators:
- Summary and full text of the letter from NLRB Regional Director Peter B. Hoffman, charging Yale to settle through contractual procedings, and PDF of the letter itself (PDF opens in new window).
- The Settlement document
- Brief explanation of the meaning of the Settlement
- Higher-level activity behind the scenes — in a postscript, what Yale and Union negotiators did not know, and why Yale accepted “impossible” terms
Last updated 11 March 2022 (Friday) at 23:57:53 UTC ▲