ducation and the
Thank You for a Successful 45th Annual Conference
The National Center extends its many thanks to the speakers, moderators, and attendees who participated in our 45th annual conference held at the CUNY Graduate Center on
April 15-17, 2018.
The conference was a major success with timely, relevant, and balanced panels and workshops on issues facing higher education and the professions.
A core aspect of our labor-management mission is to examine unionization and collective bargaining as a democratic means for advancing higher education and the working conditions of those working in higher education and the professions.
Save the Dates for 2019 Annual Conference: April 7-9, 2019
We have already begun planning for the next annual conference, which will be held on
April 7-9, 2019 at the CUNY Graduate Center. Next month, we will begin distributing a Call for Papers. We encourage you to submit a proposal for a panel or workshop for next year's conference.
William A. Herbert
Taylor Law 50th Anniversary Conference: May 10-11, 2018 in Albany, N.Y.
The National Center is very pleased to be participating in a conference on May 10-11, 2018 celebrating the Taylor Law's 50th anniversary.
The conference is being hosted by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board in conjunction with Cornell University's ILR School, the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, and the New York State Bar Association's Labor and Employment Section.
The conference will include a plenary session discussing the potential legal and legislative ramifications of Janus v. AFSCME, including the recent legislation passed by the New York State Legislature. The conference will also include a session discussing practical strategies for adapting to a post-Janus world. Among the many other panels will be a session focused on collective bargaining in higher education under the Taylor Law.
Janus-Related Legislation and Proposed Rule Amendments
In recent newsletters, we have examined enacted and proposed legislation relating to
Janus v. AFSCME, a case pending before the Supreme Court. The decision, which is expected by late June, is likely to adversely impact public sector collective bargaining, labor relations, and unionization.
The case is a First Amendment challenge to a requirement under a state public sector collective bargaining law that non-union members in a bargaining unit pay a fee for the representation they receive in collective bargaining and in the administration of collectively negotiated agreements. The plaintiff seeks to have the Supreme Court overturn the 41-year old decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which found that mandatory agency fees in the public sector are lawful under the First Amendment.
In this month's newsletter, we examine recent amendments to collective bargaining laws in New York and Florida, pending legislation in New Jersey, and a proposed regulation in Oregon.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has signed into law
to New York's Taylor Law relevant to issues emanating from the
case. The following is a summary analysis of the recent amendments.
A. Membership Dues Deductions
Since its enactment in 1967, the Taylor Law has had a union security provision requiring public employers to deduct and transmit union membership dues pursuant to an authorization signed by an employee. This statutory union security right is subject to forfeiture if a union violates the Taylor Law's prohibition against strikes.
Under the recent amendments, public employers are now mandated to begin deducting dues no later than 30 days after receiving a signed dues deduction authorization card and transmit those duties to the applicable union within 30 days of the deduction. Prior to the amendments, the timetable for the deduction and transmittal of membership dues would have been a mandatory subject of negotiations. Now, the failure of a public employer to abide by the new time frames might form the basis for an improper practice charge alleging interference and/or domination in violation of
§209-a.1(a) and (b) of the Taylor Law.
Another important change resulting from the legislation is that a dues deduction authorization will remain in full force and effect until an employee revokes her or his union membership in writing consistent with the terms of the original authorization. Revocation will also result from an employee's resignation or termination from a position in the bargaining unit but is subject to automatic reinstatement if the employee is rehired within one year by the same employer in a position represented by the same union. In addition, a public employee's union membership is continued upon the employee returning from a voluntary or involuntary leave of absence.
B. Electronic Dues Deduction Authorizations
The recent legislation clarifies that electronic dues deduction authorizations are enforceable under the Taylor Law, consistent with New York's Technology Law provisions concerning electronic signatures.
C. Information and Access for Unions
The recent Taylor Law amendments mandate a New York public employer to notify the union representing a bargaining unit within 30 days after an employee is hired or transferred into that bargaining unit, and provide the following information to the union: the employee's name, address, job title, employing agency, department or other operating unit, and work location. In comparison, the 2017 amendments to California's public sector collective bargaining law
mandates that a union be provided with a broader range of employee information. Under the California statutory changes, a public employer must also provide a union with a bargaining unit employee's work, home, and personal cellular telephone numbers as well as a personal email address on file with the employer.
The Taylor Law amendments grant unions a new statutory right of access to meet with a new or transferred employee. Within 30 days after notifying the union of the new bargaining unit employee, a public employer must permit a union representative access to meet with the employee for a reasonable amount of time during the employee's workday without charge to leave credit. The meeting, however, must be scheduled in consultation with the employer.
The amendment includes an exception based on negotiated contract terms but the amendment does not state whether the exception is applicable to the use of leave credit, union access generally, and/or consultation with the employer.
D. Narrowing of a Union's Statutory Obligation to Represent Non-Members
One of the most controversial aspects of the Taylor Law amendments is the new limitations place on the obligation of a public sector union to represent non-members outside of collective bargaining and in the administration of a contract. How each union responds to this grant of expanded discretion will depend on its values, history, and approach to internal organizing of bargaining unit members.
The legislation provides that a union is no longer obligated to provide representation to non-members in administrative, regulatory, and legal forums. It grants a union the discretion to deny representation in such forums without fear of being sued by a non-member. It is likely, however, that a union will continue to be required to represent a non-member when the administrative or regulatory procedures are codified in a collective bargaining agreement.
Another controversial provision in the legislation is the one that grants a union the discretion to refuse to process or arbitrate a grievance by a non-member concerning discipline or an evaluation when the negotiated agreement grants a bargaining unit employee with the right to proceed without union representation and with her or his own advocate. This amendment reflects a 50-year old New York practice of negotiated agreements that permit non-exclusive representation with respect to discipline.
The denial of union representation to non-members in administrative, regulatory, and disciplinary matters can impact public employers, who will face an increase in pro se litigants and grievants, and representation by attorneys with little knowledge or experience in labor law. Courts, administrative agencies, and arbitrators might see a rise in meritless, desultory or disjointed arguments on behalf of non-members in the absence of the knowledge and experience of union representatives.
Finally, the new law states that a union is not obligated to represent a non-member during "questioning by the employer." It is unlikely that this amendment will be construed as eliminating the right of a non-member to union representation during a disciplinary interrogation guaranteed by §209-a.1(g) of the Taylor Law.
In 2007, §209-a.1(g) was added to the Taylor Law to grant New York public employees with a right to representation during interrogations analogous to the rights under the National Labor Relations Act. See, NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251 (1975).
Section 209-a.1(g) makes it an improper practice for a public employer "to fail to permit or refuse to afford a public employee the right, upon the employee's demand, to representation by a representative of the employee organization, or the designee of such organization, which has been certified or recognized under this article when at the time of questioning by the employer of such employee it reasonably appears that he or she may be the subject of a potential disciplinary action."
This public employer improper practice was added to the Taylor Law following a Court of Appeals decision in New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board,8 N.Y.3d 226 (2007), which held that there was no inherent right to union representation during an interrogation under the Taylor Law.
The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (NYPERB) has repeatedly ruled that §209-a.1(g) is "entitled to a liberal construction with respect to the representational rights protected." See, Tarrytown PBA, 40 NYPERB ¶3024 (2007). See also, State of New York (Department of Correctional Services), 43 NYPERB ¶3031 (2010).
The text of the recent amendment to the Taylor Law does not indicate an intent by the Legislature to negate or modify the right of representation set forth in §209-a.1(g) or to adversely impact NYPERB's liberal construction of the improper practice provision. In fact, §209-a.1(g) and the subject of discipline are not referenced in the subsection of the recent amendments concerning employer questioning.
The grant of discretion to a union with respect to providing representation to a non-member during employer questioning can be harmonized with §209-a.1(g) by a finding that a union can now deny representation during questioning when the non-member is not the subject of potential disciplinary action. A resolution of this issue, however, will have to be resolved in future litigation.
The New Jersey Legislature has passed the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act that will grant public sector unions greater statutory rights to meet and communicate with bargaining unit members. The bill is awaiting the expected signature of New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy.
A. Union Access to Bargaining Unit Members
The legislation will require a public employer to provide various forms of union access to bargaining unit employees including: the right to meet with individual employees during the workday to investigate and discuss grievances and complaints; the right to hold union meetings at workplaces during non-work time connected with the union's responsibilities as the exclusive representative of unit employees; and the right to meet with newly hired employees within 30 days of appointment for at least 30 minutes as part of a new employee orientation or at individual or group meetings.
The bill will grant a union the right to use the public employer's email system to communicate with bargaining unit employees concerning collective bargaining, grievances, other work related grievances, and internal union matters. It will also grant the right of unions to utilize government buildings for meetings about collective bargaining, contract administration, and internal union matters unrelated to partisan political activities.
B. Bargaining Unit Member Information
The New Jersey bill will require a public employer to provide the following information to a union within 10 days of the appointment of a new bargaining unit member: the employee's name, job title, work site location, home address, work telephone number, home and personal cellular telephone numbers on file with the public employer, date of hire, and the work email address and personal email address on file with the public employer.
The bill will also require, beginning January 1, 2019, a public employer to provide to a certified union every 120 calendar days the following information concerning all employees in a bargaining unit: employee name, job title, work site location, home address, work, home and cellular telephone numbers, date of hire, and the work email address and personal email address on file with the public employer.
C. Prohibited Public Employer Conduct and Revocation Procedures
The legislation, if signed into law, will prohibit a public employer from encouraging a bargaining unit member to revoke her or his union membership or dues deduction authorization. The bill will also establish a window and procedure for the revocation of dues deduction authorizations: an employee will have to submit the revocation in writing during the 10 day period following the employee's anniversary date of employment, and the revocation will become effective on the 30th day after the employee's anniversary date.
D. Electronic Signatures and Communication
The New Jersey legislation will permit electronic signatures and electronic communications for dues deduction authorizations.
The Oregon Employment Relations Board has posted a public meeting notice for April 30, 2018 concerning a proposed rule change that would permit electronic and telephonic dues deduction authorizations, and that would permit the placing of certain limitations on the revocation of such authorizations.
Under recent legislation enacted in Florida concerning primary and secondary schools, all unions certified to represent units of public school instructional personnel must report, effective July 1, 2018, the number of unit employees eligible for representation and the number of unit employees who pay and do not pay union dues. When an employee organization has less than 50% membership it must petition for recertification with the Florida Public Employee Relations Board (FPERC)) within one month after it applies for renewal of its registration.
March 2018 newsletter
provides additional details concerning the new legislation, which does not apply to higher education institutions.
Harvard University: Graduate Students Vote for UAW Representation
Harvard University, NLRB Case No. 01-RC-186442
The April 19, 2018
tally of ballots
from the recently conducted NLRB election concerning the Harvard Graduate Students Union-UAW petition seeking to represent 5050 graduate student employees (GSE) at Harvard University shows that
1,931 GSEs voted in favor of representation and 1,523 voted against.
The following is the description of the at-issue bargaining unit as set forth in the notice of election:
Included: All students enrolled in Harvard degree programs employed by the Employer who provide instructional services at Harvard University, including graduate and undergraduate Teaching Fellows (teaching assistants, teaching fellows, course assistants); and all students enrolled in Harvard degree programs (other than undergraduate students at Harvard College) employed by the Employer who serve
as Research Assistants (regardless of funding sources, including those compensated through Training Grants). This unit includes students employed by Harvard University and enrolled in the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Business School, the Division of Continuing Education, Harvard Graduate School of Design; Harvard Graduate School of Education, the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Harvard Law School, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard Medical School, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Harvard College who were employed by the Employer during the payroll period ending March 12, 2018. Also eligible to vote are doctoral students who are not currently employed, but were employed in the bargaining unit for at least the Spring Semester of 2017, the Fall
Semester of 2017, or during the Summer Session/Term of 2017, and who are not currently in their Dissertation Completion Year (or final year of their program).
Excluded: All undergraduate students serving as research assistants, and all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Penn State: Graduate Students Vote Against
Pennsylvania State University, PRLB Case No. PERA-R-17-40-E
According to a media report, the April 24, 2018 tally of ballots in the representation election conducted by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) concerning the petition filed by the Coalition of Graduate Employees, PSEA/NEA, seeking to represent 3,799 graduate student employees (GSE) at Pennsylvania State University, shows that 950 GSE voted against representation and 438 voted in favor. The petition will be dismissed unless election objections are filed by the petitioning union, and sustained by the PLRB.
The following is the at-issue GSE bargaining unit at Pennsylvania State University:
All full-time and regular part-time professional employes who are graduate students on graduate assistantship or traineeship and who perform services as teaching assistants, research assistants, or administrative support assistants; and excluding graduate students on fellowship, management level employes, supervisors, first level supervisors, confidential employes and guards as defined in the Act.
Georgetown University: Agreement Reached for Non-NLRB Election
On April 2, 2018, Georgetown University entered into an agreement with the Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees and the American Federation of Teachers (GAGE-AFT) for a non-NLRB election to be conducted by the American Arbitration Association to determine whether a majority of graduate student assistants wish to be represented by GAGE-AFT for purposes of collective bargaining.
The agreement sets forth the agreed-upon bargaining unit, policies concerning communications and access prior to an election, pre-election and election procedures, and the collective bargaining process if the graduate student employees vote in favor of representation.
The following is the agreed-upon bargaining unit at Georgetown University:
Included: All graduate students enrolled in Georgetown University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences graduate degree programs (Ph.D. and Masters) and who are serving as Graduate Student Assistants.
Excluded: All graduate students in the Law Center or the School of Medicine; all undergraduate students, all adjunct or full-time faculty members; all supervisors, managers or administrators; all faculty and staff who are enrolled using TAP benefits; and all other students or employees who are not specifically included in the defined unit.
|Columbia Univ.: GSE Commence Strike to Compel Collective Bargaining
Graduate student employees (GSE) at Columbia University have commenced a strike seeking to compel the institution to commence bargaining consistent with the certification issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on December 16, 2017. The following is the bargaining unit certified by the NLRB:
All student employees who provide instructional services, including graduate and undergraduate Teaching Assistants (Teaching Assistants, Teaching Fellows,
Preceptors, Course Assistants, Readers, and Graders): All Graduate Research Assistants (including those compensated through Training Grants) and All Departmental Research Assistants employed by the Employer at all of its facilities, including Morningside Heights, Health Sciences, Lamont-Doherty, and Nevis
facilities, but excluding all other employees, guards, and professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Prior to the strike, Provost John H. Coatsworth circulated a letter to the university community outlining the school's federal court litigation strategy aimed at overturning the NLRB's decision finding that graduate students who receive compensation for work are protected under the National Labor Relations Act.
In his April 18, 2018 letter, Provost Coatsworth did not expressly address why Columbia University was not following the path taken by other private institutions, like American University, the New School, and Brandeis University, which commenced negotiations following the certifications of GSE-represented bargaining units on their campuses. Similarly, Provost Coatsworth's letter is silent about the agreements reached at Cornell University and Georgetown University for non-NLRB elections or the five decades of GSE collective bargaining experiences at public sector colleges and universities.
The use of a litigation strategy by Columbia University for the purposes of depriving the right to collectively bargain by those working at the school is not new. An article in the current issue of the Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy shows that Columbia University, unlike other institutions, utilized the courts in the 1940s to deprive its blue collar workers of the right to collectively bargain.
Herkimer County Comm. Coll.: Election Objections Rejected
Herkimer County Community College and County of Herkimer,
NYPERB Case No. C-6296
On March 26, 2018, New York Public Employment Relations Board (NYPERB) Director of Public Employment Practices and Representation Melanie Wlasuk issued a decision denying election objections filed by Herkimer County Community College and County of Herkimer, a joint employer under New York's Taylor Law.
The joint employer's objections stemmed from a mail ballot election conducted by NYPERB with respect to a petition filed by SEIU seeking to represent a unit of 56 part-time adjunct faculty at Herkimer County Community College. The tally of ballots showed that 19 eligible faculty members voted in favor of representation and 9 voted against.
In its objections, the joint employer argued that as a prerequisite to SEIU being certified following the election, a majority of eligible faculty unit members must have voted in favor of representation. In rejecting that argument Director Wlasuk relied on NYPERB well-established precedent and practice of issuing a certification following an election based on a majority of valid ballots counted.
Nazareth College of Rochester: SEIU Files to Represent NTT-PT Unit
Nazareth College of Rochester, NLRB Case No. 03-RC-218093
On April 10, 2018, SEIU filed a petition with the NLRB seeking to represent a unit of 280 non-tenure track faculty at Nazareth College of Rochester. A mail ballot election has been scheduled pursuant to a stipulated election agreement, with the ballots being mailed on May 18, 2018.
The following is the at-issue adjunct unit at Nazareth College of Rochester:
Included: All part-time faculty and adjunct faculty employed by the Employer who perform instructional services for matriculated and non-matriculated individuals, and all part-time English Language Institute (ELI) instructors.
Excluded: All students and all other employees including, full-time employees, tenured and tenure-track faculty, full-time non-tenure track faculty, visiting faculty, otherwise eligible voters who hold another position with the College (with the exception of those who also hold the position of a part-time community music teacher), part-time community music teachers (with the exception of those who also hold a position otherwise included), full-time instructors, faculty emeriti, faculty with Rank and Time, Executive Directors, Directors, Associate Directors, Assistant Directors, Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, Chairs of Departments, Co-Chairs of Departments, full-time and part-time faculty who teach exclusively online, coaches, assistant coaches, camp counselors, chaperones, trainers, tutors, managerial employees, office clerical employees, guards, and professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Pasco-Hernando State College: FT-TT Vote for UFF Representation
Pasco-Hernando State College Board of Trustees, FPERC RC-2017-036
On April 11, 2018, the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission conducted a tally of ballots concerning a petition filed by United Faculty of Florida seeking to represent a unit of 144 full-time faculty members at Pasco-Hernando State College. The tally demonstrated that 64 faculty members voted in favor of representation and 62 voted against.
The following is the at-issue faculty bargaining unit at Pasco-Hernando State College:
Included: All full-time faculty in the job classifications of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor.
Excluded: All managerial, administrative, supervisory and confidential employees including, but not limited to, those job titles categorized as follows: administrative and professional, career service, other professional services, part-time employees, adjunct faculty, acting or interim faculty, athletic director/instructor, assistant director/instructor, co-curricular specialist/teaching assign, athletic trainer/instructor, rangemaster, law enforcement/corrections instructor/coordinator, fire science instructor/coordinator, welding instructor/coordinator, developmental math coordinator, counselors and librarians, and all other employees of the College not expressly included.
University of South Florida: SEIU Certified to Represent NTT-PT Unit
University of South Florida Board of Trustees, FPERC RC-2017-036
On March 13, 2018, the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (FPERC) conducted a tally of ballots concerning a petition filed by SEIU seeking to represent a unit of 893 part-time non-tenure tract faculty members at the University of South Florida. The tally demonstrated that 326 faculty members voted in favor of representation and 91 voted against.
On March 29, 2018, the FPERC certified SEIU to represent the following faculty bargaining unit at the University of South Florida:
Included: All part-time non-tenure-track faculty (including adjunct faculty, adjuncts-contingent, adjunct, adjunct instruct, skilled craftsman, Into/Pathways, instructor, instructor I, instructor II, and hourly employee) employed by the University of South Florida at its Tampa Campus, St. Petersburg Campus, and Sarasota-Manatee Campus, who is teaching at least one college-credit-bearing course, including any employee who also works for the University in another capacity unless expressly excluded.
Excluded: All other faculty, including tenured and tenure-track faculty, full-time faculty, visiting or contract faculty, faculty who are currently part of an existing bargaining unit, all administrations (including academic advisors, deans, assistants to deans, provost, directors, coordinators, can department chairs), student services advising generalists, athletic coaches, all faculty teaching at the College of Nursing, Morsani College of Medicine, College of Public Health, School of Physical Therapy, School of Biomedical Sciences, and College of Pharmacy, all other employees who are not compensated additionally for teaching, managers, confidential employees, and supervisors.
Lake-Sumter State Coll.: Petition Filed for Unit of Faculty and Librarians
Lake-Sumter State College, FPERC Case No. RC-2018-005
On April 17, 2018, United Faculty of Florida filed a petition seeking to represent a unit of 95 full-time tenure track faculty and librarians at Lake-Sumter State College in Leesburg, Florida.
The following is the proposed bargaining unit set forth in the representation petition:
Included: Instructor, Staff Librarian, Assistant Professor, Assistant Librarian, Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, Senior Professor, Senior Librarian, Lecturer, Full-Time Temporary Instructor,
Excluded: All managerial, administrative, supervisory and confidential employees including, but not limited to , those job titles categorized as follows: administrative and professional, career service, other professional services, part-time employees, adjunct faculty, acting or interim faculty.
|North Central Michigan College: MEA Files to Represent Non-Faculty Unit
North Central Michigan College, MERC Case No. R18 C-018
On March 2, 2018, the Michigan Education Association filed a petition to represent a unit of 31 full-time and regular part-time non-academic employees at North Central Michigan College.
The following is the proposed unit in the representation petition:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time Office Professionals, Clerical Professionals, Custodial employees, and Maintenance employees.
Excluded: Supervisors and/or Administrative personnel.
Saint Xavier University: Court Action Seeks to Vacate Certification
Saint Xavier University v. NLRB
On March 12, 2018, Saint Xavier University filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking to set aside a certification of the Saint Xavier University Adjunct Faculty Organization, IEA-NEA, as the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit composed of 122 part-time non-tenure track faculty.
The following is the at-issue certified unit at Saint Xavier University:
Included: All part-time faculty employed by the Employer at its campuses presently located at 3700 West 103rd Street, Chicago, Illinois and 18230 Orland Parkway, Orland Park, Illinois, who teach at least three credit hours per semester.
Excluded: All part-time faculty while teaching coursework in the Pastoral Ministry Institute and members in the School of Nursing, all part-time faculty teaching in the Department of Religious Studies, all music tutors, all student supervisors in the School of Education, independent contractors, confidential employees and managers, office clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Saint Xavier University lawsuit is similar to the one filed by Duquesne University in the same appellate court, challenging the NLRB's assertion of jurisdiction over faculty representation issues based on the school's religious affiliation and mission. In both lawsuits, the schools will be arguing that the standards set forth in the NLRB's decision in Pacific Lutheran University, 361 NLRB No. 157 (2014) with respect to when it should assert jurisdiction over a religiously affiliated institution are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979).
Manhattan Coll.: ULP Challenging Refusal to Bargain Remains Pending
Manhattan College, NLRB Case No. 02-CA-201623
On September 19, 2017, the NLRB General Counsel issued a complaint against Manhattan College based on its refusal to bargain following the certification of the Manhattan College Adjunct Faculty Union, NYSUT, AFT-NEA as the representative for non-tenure track faculty at the college.
Since that time, Manhattan College has objected to the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment, contending that the NLRB Board should deny the motion and reconsider the standard it announced four years ago in Pacific Lutheran University,
361 NLRB No. 157 (2014) with respect to when it would assert jurisdiction over a religiously affiliated institution.
Maricopa County Comm. Coll.: Faculty Sue Over Unilateral Changes
The Faculty Executive Council of the Maricopa Community Colleges District have commenced a
in Arizona Superior Court challenging a decision by the
Maricopa County Community Colleges District
Governing Board to abolish meet and confer procedures in the Residential Faculty Policies, and the elimination of paid employee organization leave.
According to the lawsuit, the unilateral actions were taken in retaliation for alleged on-duty political fundraising by faculty in violation of written policy. The complaint alleges that the decision to eliminate the meet and confer procedures and the paid employee organization leave policy were based on false assumptions and mischaracterizations.
On April 26, 2018, AAUP sent a
to the Maricopa County Community Colleges District Governing Board expressing its concerns over the abolition of the meet and confer procedures as a departure from the principles of shared governance
CCSNH: NH Court Finds Adjunct Wages for Tutoring Mandatory Subject
|Appeal of State Employees' Association, SEIU Local 1984, Case No. 2017-0115
On April 25, 2018, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a decision reversing a ruling by the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (NHPELRB) and finding that the Community College System of New Hampshire (CCSNH) engaged in an unfair labor practice when it refused to negotiate with SEIU Local 1984 over the wages for on-campus tutoring work performed by adjunct faculty members in the represented bargaining unit.
During collective negotiations in 2016 for a successor contract, SEIU Local 1984 sought to bargain the wages paid to adjunct faculty for their tutoring on campus. CCSNH objected claiming that the tutoring performed by the adjunct faculty was not bargaining unit work and CCSNH refused to compensate a faculty member for lost tutoring time to attend the collective bargaining sessions.
Subsequently, an unfair labor practice charge was filed by SEIU Local 1984 challenging CCSNH's refusal to negotiate and to compensate the faculty member for his lost tutoring hours. The charge was dismissed by NHPELRB, which agreed with CCSNH that tutoring was outside the scope of bargaining unit work, and therefore adjunct faculty wages for tutoring was not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
On appeal, a split panel of the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, concluding that compensation for tutoring by adjunct faculty fell within the broad definition of the term "wages" under the New Hampshire public sector collective bargaining statute. The majority also concluded that the adjunct faculty member on the bargaining team was entitled to be compensated for his lost tutoring hours resulting from his participation in the bargaining sessions.
Tufts University: Dining Staff Vote for UNITE-HERE Representation
|Trustees of Tufts College (Tufts University), NLRB Case No. 01-RC-217653
On April 24, 2018, the food service workers on Tufts University's Medford Campus voted in favor of representation by UNITE-HERE. Of the 176 food service workers, 127 voted in favor of unionization and 19 voted against.
The following is the new collective bargaining unit at Tufts University:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time food service workers at the Employer's Medford campus.
Excluded: All other classifications and employees, including clericals, managerial employees, confidential employees, current Tufts students, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
University of Illinois-Springfield: Chairs Found to be Managerial
|University of Illinois v. the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board,
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, Case No. 4-17-0059
On April 16, 2018, the Appellate Court of Illinois, 4th District issued a decision reversing a 2016 ruling by the Illinois Educational Labor Relating Board (IELRB), which had added department chairs to a previously certified bargaining unit consisting of all tenured and tenure-track faculty at the University of Illinois-Springfield represented by the University Professionals of Illinois, Local 4100, IFT-AFT, AFL-CIO.
The appellate court concluded, based on the IELRB administrative record, that department chairs at the University of Illinois-Springfield are managerial employees under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act because of their executive responsibilities to effectuate management policies and practices. As a result, the court found that they are excluded from the statutory right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining under the Illinois educational collective bargaining law.
Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy
The Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy is the National Center's peer review multi-disciplinary journal that is co-edited by Jeffrey Cross, Eastern Illinois University, and Gary Rhoades, University of Arizona.
We encourage scholars, practitioners, and graduate students in the fields of collective bargaining, labor representation, labor relations, and labor history to submit research articles, op-eds, and practitioner perspectives for potential publication. The Journal is particularly interested in contributions related to collective bargaining and unionization issues in a post-Janus world.
The following are articles published in the latest Journal volume:
The Slippery Slope of "Unique"
by Daniel J. Julius counters the commonly held notion among academics that their collective bargaining is essentially different from other bargaining units.
The History Books Tell It? Collective Bargaining in Higher Education in the 1940s
by William A. Herbert examines the little-known history of collective bargaining in higher education from the 1940s including the collective bargaining program instituted by the University of Illinois and the role of United Public Workers of America and its predecessor unions in negotiating the first contracts for faculty before the union was destroyed during the McCarthy era.
The Accidental Academic: Reflections on 50 Years in Academic Collective Bargaining
by William Connellan gives a retrospective from a 50-year veteran in academic labor relations that reminds us of the complexity of bargaining, with not only the internal tensions, but the external dimension to what happens at the bargaining table.
The Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy is
supported, in part, by a generous contribution from
TIAA-CREF and is hosted by the institutional repository of Eastern Illinois University.
Upcoming Conferences of Interest
The following are some upcoming conferences that you may be interested in attending:
June 6, 2018:
Cornell ILR has scheduled a Conversation with NLRB Chairman John F. Ring on June 6, 2018 at its New York City offices.
June 7-8, 2018:
The NYU Center for Labor and Employment Law will be holding its 71st Annual NYU Conference on Labor on June 7-8, 2018 in New York City. The focus of the conference will be on Trump Administration labor and employment initiatives.
June 14-17, 2018:
The Labor and Employment Relations Association will be holding its 70th annual meeting on June 14-17, 2018 in Baltimore, Maryland. The theme of the conference is Shaping the Future of Work: Challenges, Opportunities and New Models.
June 14-15, 2018:
AAUP's Annual Conference on the State of Higher Education will be taking place on June 24-25, 2018 in Arlington, Virginia. The conference plenary speaker will be Nancy MacLean, William H. Chafe Professor of History and Public Policy at Duke University and author of Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, a finalist for the National Book Award.
August 3-5, 2018:
The Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor will be holding COCAL XIII on August 3-5, 2018 at San Jose State University, California.