A vote against union representation by Howard County school bus drivers Tuesday night still has the potential to change.
Ray Lee, organizing director for the local chapter of United Food and Commercial Workers International, said 41 ballots are being challenged – with around 30 of those challenges coming from the National Labor Relations Board, and the rest from the union itself.
Lee said ballots can be challenged for many reasons.
“It could be that they were not included on the voter list,” he said. “It could be that they were excluded from the unit, because they are managers and they voted. They attempted to vote.”
In a 110-78 vote against unionizing, those 41 ballots could change the vote results. The timeline is in the hands of the National Labor Relations Board, Lee said. It all depends on how quickly the board reviews the challenged ballots.
The drivers attempting to unionize are employed by Zum Transportation Services, a California-based company that signed a five-year contract with the Howard County public schools district to cover over 300 bus routes in June.
But the company has faced scrutiny since the beginning of the school year – with parents and school officials reporting missing and long-delayed buses. The district’s chief operating officer left his position amid the chaos.
Lee says the Zum bus drivers want “a seat at the table” to make decisions that affect their jobs.
“A lot of them have come from working in union environments, and they understand the value – that having a union is having a voice in the workplace,” he said. “Some of them are a little disgruntled about promises that were made that they believe they didn't uphold.”
A Zum spokesperson said the company is “grateful” that “drivers and attendants elected to work directly with Zum.”
“We respect their choice and will continue to ensure that they experience industry-leading pay, benefits, work culture and career growth,” the emailed statement said.
Zum drivers rallied last week to garner support ahead of the union vote. In a press release, Lee said the company was using “union-busting attempts” like hiring an anti-union law firm and holding one-on-one meetings with employees to discourage a pro-union vote.
