Some Ohio State security staffers to vote on whether to join FOP
Columbus OH Sept 16 2018 Some Ohio State University security officers will vote this month on whether to be represented by the Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council Inc.
A three-page letter sent from Ohio State Public Safety Director Monica Moll, obtained by The Dispatch, informed Central Campus Security Services staff members of the union election, explaining that the State Employment Relations Board will be mailing ballots to eligible voters this week.
A request for recognition was filed in early June by the FOP Ohio Labor Council to propose a bargaining unit for full-time security officers at Ohio State. Central Campus Security Services has about 50 full-time employees, according to Ohio State. Of those, the FOP Ohio Labor Council is seeking to represent about 31 security officers.
The Central Campus Security Services division, made up of unsworn officers and staffers, is responsible for security at Ohio State’s academic campus, as well as at the Wexner Center for the Arts, where a former security guard damaged art and terrorized employees before fatally shooting himself in November 2015.
The division also provides security at campus sporting events and student residence and dining halls, among other responsibilities. The Wexner Medical Center has its own security division.
Ballots must be returned to the State Employment Relations Board between Sept. 25 and Oct. 9.
In Moll’s Aug. 31 letter to security officers, she wrote that the department strives for effective communication, and that security officers already have an avenue to appeal decisions that they believe to be unfair — through the State Personnel Board of Review.
“I believe our record shows a willingness to consider and act on concerns raised by Security Officers and CPOs (Campus Protection Officers),” Moll wrote, pointing to improvements to the department’s fleet and equipment, an increase in training and a change in uniforms.
Moll wrote that she has “worked well with unions” and understands and respects that employees might have different opinions, but said, “I genuinely believe that union representation is not needed for you or any of the Security Officers and CPOs.”
She also warned that unionization often comes with dues, but doesn’t guarantee any specific change or result. And though Ohio State would bargain in good faith, Moll noted, the FOP could not force the university to agree to any specific change.
“I hope when you think about your vote, you will not be influenced by anyone promising any specific result from bargaining,” Moll wrote. “Unionization doesn’t automatically translate into any particular benefit or change.”
Ohio State spokesman Dan Hedman said in an emailed statement that the security officers’ vote “is an important decision and we have communicated with employees in order to empower them to make an informed decision.”
According to its website, the FOP Ohio Labor Council represents more than 9,000 members in 450 bargaining units across the state. The organization did not return messages left by The Dispatch seeking comment.
Ohio State wouldn’t comment on what — or whether — concerns among security officers had been brought to officials’ attention.
“We do not want to speculate or generalize why individual employees want to pursue unionization,” Hedman said. “The Department of Public Safety works diligently to review and address any employee concerns and values open communication within all divisions.”
One security officer, who asked not to be identified, said he opposes a union but expressed concerns about leadership.
“We don’t need a union; we need competent management,” the officer said.
Another security officer told The Dispatch that guards’ responsibilities continue to increase, but with no extra compensation. Guards also are looking for more training, as well as liability protection, the officer said.
“Overall, everyone is looking for a change,” the officer said. “It’s been real stagnant, so we’re looking to see if a union would bring a good change.”
Moll pointed out in her letter that the division has seen recent growth and change, but that officers’ input has been important throughout those changes.
“I realize this has brought with it many changes in a short period of time, and change can be disconcerting at times,” Moll wrote. “The input of security officers and CPOs has been instrumental in shaping the way we’ve adapted to these changes thus far, and will continue to be important to me as the division evolves.”
dispatch.com
