for the S tudy of C ollective B argaining in 
H igher E ducation and the P rofessions
Follow us on Twitter @HigherEd_CB
                                                                                                 February, 2018
The National Center E-Note is a monthly electronic newsletter containing research and analysis relevant to unionization and collective bargaining in higher education and the professions.

1.     Register Now for the National Center's April 15-17, 2018 Annual Conference


Register Now for the National Center's 45th Annual Conference
   45th Annual Conference in NYC: April 15-17, 2018
Facing New Realities in Higher Education and the Professions  
Register now for the National Center's annual labor-management conference, which will be taking place on April 15-17, 2018 at the CUNY Graduate Center in New York City.  The conference will include interactive workshops, research presentations, and panels relevant to faculty, administrators, and non-faculty staff at universities, colleges, and community colleges.

We have special registration rates for adjunct faculty ($110.00; Promo 1719) and graduate student employees ($55, Promo Code 1922).  

The keynote speaker will be David Weil, Dean of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University.  Dean Weil is author of The Fissured Workplace: How Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can be Done to Improve It.

The conference plenary session will be examining Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and His Legacy for Our Times. Confirmed speakers for the plenary session are three historians: William P. Jones, the University of Minnesota, Derryn Moten, Alabama State University, and  Jeanne Theoharis, Brooklyn College.  The plenary will be moderated by Ronald Mason, Jr. , President, the University of the District of Columbia.

The following are some of the confirmed conference panels and workshops:

Workshops: April 15, 2018

Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Administrators

Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Academic Labor

Bargaining Over Health Care in Higher Education

Preparing, Presenting, and Defending at Arbitration

Financial Data Analysis in Higher Education

Effective Lobbying for Higher Education

Panels: April 16-17, 2018

Responding to Janus: Collective Bargaining and Membership Engagement

Recently Negotiated First Contracts for Adjunct Faculty

Bargaining a First Contract for Graduate Student Employees

Interest-based Bargaining at Community Colleges

Collective Bargaining for Non-Academic Staff
Academic Freedom in Trying Times
Wage Discrimination at Universities and Professional Schools

Creative Solutions for Resolving Wage Compression

Mission-Driven Classification Systems and the Impact of Collective Bargaining

Labor-Management Alliances in Support of Higher Education Funding

Online Harassment of Faculty and Administrators

Resolution of Conflicts and Improvement of Labor-Management Relationships

The Politics and Impact of Accreditation

Unionization at Religiously-Affiliated Colleges and Universities

Unionized Environments at Academic Libraries

The Financialization of Higher Education

The Unionization of Doctors and Nurses D2
The Delphi Award for Faculty Models that Support Student Success
by Adrianna Kezar, Professor for Higher Education, USC
The Delphi Project is happy to announce a new award, the Delphi Award, which recognizes the good work of campus leaders to better support today's faculty.  The new award is made possible by the generous support of the Teagle Foundation.
The purpose of the Delphi Award is to reward campuses for making positive changes to policies and practices that support faculty, particularly in ways that enable faculty to support students. This award comes at a time where the environment of classrooms and the life of faculty have changed radically in the last two decades, moving to contingent faculty models. Various studies have demonstrated how these changes work directly against the type of support needed for students and quality instruction (see summary of research at  
We hope to select campuses that have made alterations in:
  1. Practice (e.g., appropriate campus orientations, responsible hiring processes, feedback and evaluation)
  2. Policies (e.g., promotion and advancement, participation in governance, compensation, academic freedom protections)
  3. Programs and services (e.g., mentoring, professional development processes)
  4. Implementation of new faculty models (e.g. campus that initiate a new contract type or model of faculty beyond the adjunct or research-intensive faculty model. See The Delphi Project's Adapting by Design report for examples.)
Collective bargaining results in positive changes needed to support an effective and thriving professoriate. Thus, we know that reaching out to this community should result in applications for the award given the important work that you do.
Criteria for Award:

Because the award is aimed at recognizing exemplary practices, policies, and programs or services that support faculty in being successful so that they can support students, the following criteria will be used:
  1. Evidence that the program, policy, or practice is designed with student success in mind. It is important that the submitting campus describe what their definition is of student success.
  2. Evidence that the program, policy, or practice is impacting student success. Campuses must also present evidence of their definition of student success detailed in criteria 1. Evidence of student success might include the following example/data source: graduation or persistence rates, course passing rates, GPA, etc.
  3. Evidence that the program, policy, or practice is assisting faculty in being more effective in their work.
  4. Evidence illustrating how the program, policy, or practice can be replicated or emulated on any campus (i.e., that other institutions might be able to adopt the approach with minimum difficulty).
  5. Evidence that the program, policy, or practice has been designed in collaboration with the faculty that the program, policy, or practice is aimed at.
  6. Evidence that the program, policy, or practice has resulted in positive impact on the learning for the institution/department/unit that has encouraged rethinking other policies, practices, or programs.
  7. Evidence that the program, policy, or practice is being institutionalized and will be sustained. Evidence may entail inclusion in strategic plans, stated leadership commitment, fundraising, and development aimed at supporting the practice. If it has existed for over a year, how did it survive after the first year of implementation? How has it improved or altered to ensure its sustainability?
  8. Theory of action that explains the connection between the program, policy or practice and support of faculty and relationship of that change to support of student success.
Each winning institution will receive a cash award in the amount of $15,000 which will be given out at the annual meeting of the Association of American colleges and universities. One two-year and one four-year institution will be chosen each year for the award.
Deadline for Submissions:
The deadline is June 1, 2018 at 5 PM Pacific Time. All material should be submitted as a single PDF document via email to
For More Information:

Details for the award can be found at our website:  D3
Janus v. AFSCME: Models of Statutory Response
J anus v. AFSCME , United States Supreme Court, Case No. 16-1466
The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in Janus v. AFSCME for next Monday, February 26, 2018.  The case is a First Amendment challenge to an agency fee requirement under a public sector collective bargaining law requiring non-union members in a bargaining unit to pay a fee for the representation they receive in collective bargaining and in the administration of the contract.  A ruling in  Janus is expected to be issued by late June.

Last month, we highlighted the public policy approaches taken by Florida and California, which might be followed in other states following a ruling in Janus.  This month, we take a look at recently proposed legislation in other states relevant to the practical impact of a decision in Janus finding an agency fee to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.


In Massachusetts, House of Representative member Gerald Cassidy has introduced legislation, H1335, which would require payment of an agency fee by all non-members, and excludes all non-members who fail to pay an agency fee from the terms of a negotiated contract with the exception of negotiated cost of living allowances.  Under present state law, an agency fee can be imposed only after a contract has been negotiated requiring payment of the fee as a condition of employment.  M.G.L. Ch. 150E, Sec. 12.  In addition, the current  statute prohibits a union from discriminating against an employee on the basis of the employee's membership, non-membership, or agency fee status.

The proposal by Massachusetts Representative Cassidy to exclude non-members from most of the fruits of collective bargaining if they fail to pay the agency fee is an interesting variation on the members-only approach being advocated by some scholars.  Importantly, the proposal would not relieve a union from the obligation of administering grievances relating to cost of living increases, and providing other forms of representation in light of the non-discrimination provision under current Massachusetts law. 


On February 7, 2018, House Bill 1017 was introduced in the Maryland Legislature to expand the obligations of the State Department of Budget and Management, the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, St. Mary's College of Maryland, and Baltimore City Community College to provide information to a certified union concerning new and current employee.  A similar bill was introduced in the Maryland Senate.

If enacted, the proposed amendment would require those public employers to provide a union the following information in electronic form within 30 days of the hiring of a new employee: name; position classification; bargaining unit; home and work site addresses where the employee receives interoffice or mail; home and work telephone numbers; work and personal e-mail addresses; and position identification number.   

The bill would also mandate that the same information be provided to the union for current employees at least every 120 days.  The proposed law would not eliminate the current opt-out provision in current law, which permits employees to object to the providing of the information.

New York  

In New York, there is a bill pending in the state legislature that would amend New York's Civil Service Law to require a public employer to provide a union the following information concerning newly hired, reemployed, and promoted employees within 30 days: name, job title, work location, work telephone number, and hours of work.  

The bill would also require public employers to commence making membership dues deductions within 30 days after receiving proof of an employee's signed dues deduction authorization, and  require the employer to permit a union representative to meet with a new, reemployed, or promoted employee during work time within 30 days of employment unless otherwise specified in a collective bargaining agreement.  

Lastly, the bill would also require public employers to accept electronic dues deduction authorizations in any format permitted under New York State Technology Law, Article III


A bill, SB 1524, was introduced in the Oregon Senate on February 5, 2018 to amend that state's law by establishing a system of members-only collective bargaining.  Under the proposed amendment, the law would distinguish between a "union employee" "who consents to join, renew membership in or pay for the services of a labor organization" and an "independent employee" "who does not consent to join, renew membership in or pay for the services of a labor organization." 

Under the bill, an independent employee would not be required to pay dues or fees to a union to defray the cost of a labor organization's services, and it would an unfair labor practice for a union to enter into an agreement that requires independent employees to make payments to the union. 

As a consequence of not paying dues or representation fees to a union, an independent employee would not be permitted to benefit from the union's services and the union would not be required to bargain on behalf or provide other representation on behalf of the independent employee.  The bill would mandate a public employer to determine the wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment of an independent employee based on the independent employee's education, experience, training, skills and performance, and not based on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

The bill's sponsor, Oregon Republican Senator Jeff Kruse, has since announced his resignation from office following a detailed report finding that he had engaged in sexual harassment in the workplace over many years.

There is a bill pending in the State of Washington that would require granting a union access to a new employee for at least 30 minutes within 30 days after the employee commenced employment.  The proposed statutorily mandated access would take place during the the employer's orientation or at another mutually agreed upon time.  D4
Brookdale Community College: AFT Adjunct Unit Voluntarily Recognized
According to a website post, Brookdale Community College voluntarily recognized the Brookdale Adjunct Faculty union on February 13, 2018 as the exclusive representative of approximately 450 adjunct faculty at the college.  The recognition took place after the union demonstrated majority support through signed authorization cards.  D5 
Southwestern Michigan College: Faculty Vote for MEA Representation
Southwestern Michigan College, MERC Case No. R17 K-098

On  February 8, 2018, the Michigan Education Association was certified by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission to represent a unit of all full-time tenured and tenure-track instructional faculty at Southwestern Michigan College.  The certification followed a January 26, 2018 tally of ballots in a mail-ballot election in which 31 faculty voted in favor of representation and 23 voted against.  

The following is the new tenured and tenure-track faculty bargaining unit represented by the Michigan Education Association:

Included:  All full-time Instructional Faculty

Excluded:  Administrators, Adjunct Faculty, Advisers, Librarians, Counselors, Recruiter, and non-instructional staff.D6
Univ. of South Florida: Adjunct Faculty Mail Ballot Election Scheduled
University of South Florida Board of Trustees , PERC Case No. EL-2018-002

On January 31, 2018, the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) issued a notice of a mail-ballot election among part-time adjunct faculty at the University of South Florida on a representation petition filed by SEIU.  The ballots were mailed to the eligible voters on February 16, 2018, and ballots must be returned to Florida PERC by March 13, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. in order to be counted in the tally of ballots.

The following is the at-issue adjunct faculty 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 SarasotaManatee 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, 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.

Eligible Voters:  Eligibility includes these adjuncts who were employed during the spring, summer, or fall semesters of 2017 up to September 15, 2017.D7
Harvard College: Second NLRB Student Employee Election Scheduled
Harvard College, NLRB Case No. 01-RC-186442

Following the NLRB's December 12, 2017 decision affirming the Regional Director's decision relating to an election conducted concerning a UAW petition to represent student employees at Harvard, a second tally to ballots was conducted on January 11, 2018.  Of the approximate 3,556 student employees in the proposed unit, 1,526 voted against representation and 1,396 voted in favor. 

Based on the NLRB's decision to set aside the first election on the grounds that Harvard failed to provide a complete voter eligibility list, a notice of election was issued on February 2, 2018 scheduling a second election.  The second election will take place on April 18, 19, and 20, 2018 at various campus locations. 

The following is the agreed upon voting unit:

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 or the
Fall Semester 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.D8
Cornell University: GSE Union Plans to File Election Objections
Cornell Graduate Student United, NYSUT, AFT (CGSU) has announced plans to file objections concerning the conduct by Cornell University in an election conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in March 2017, which led to an inconclusive result.  The vote tally was 856 in favor of unionization and 919 against with 81 additional ballots challenged.  The objections could lead to the ordering of a new election.

The 2017 election was conducted pursuant to a May 2016 agreement between CGSU and Cornell University establishing a non-NLRB procedure for the unionization efforts by Cornell teaching assistants, graduate research assistants, graduate assistants, and research assistants.  

Under the agreement, the parties agreed that if the NLRB ruled that graduate students were employees for purposes of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act, the issue of whether CGSU represented a majority of Cornell graduate student employees would be determined by an AAA election rather than one conducted by the NLRB.  

The Cornell University-CGSU agreement identified the scope of the bargaining unit, and the eligibility requirements for voting.  The university agreed to voluntarily recognize the union as the exclusive representative for the graduate student employees if majority status was demonstrated through the AAA election.  Under the agreement, the parties would "have the same rights and obligations with respect to union organizing" by graduate assistants as if the graduate assistants were deemed employees for purposes of the NLRA. 

The negotiated agreement also included guidelines and limitations concerning communications by administrators, faculty, and principal investigators with graduate assistants concerning the unionization drive.  Among the restrictions was a prohibition against captive audience meetings with graduate students about union representation, and a prohibition against communications to individual graduate students "advising them on joining or supporting the Union, the benefits or disadvantages of union representation, or to discourage protected concerted activity." D9
Penn State University: GSE Election to Be Scheduled
Pennsylvania State University, PERA R-17-40E   
On February 6, 2018, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board Hearing Examiner Stephen A. Helmerich issued a decision concerning a petition filed by the Coalition of Graduate Employees, PSEA/NEA (CGE) seeking to represent a unit of approximately 4,000 full-time and regular part-time graduate student employees at Pennslylvania State University.  

During the processing of the petition, CGE clarified that it was seeking to represent four categories of graduate students: research assistants, teaching assistants, graduate assistants who perform academic or professional work for the university and graduate fellows/trainees.

During the multi-day hearing before Hearing Officer Helmerich, the university  contested the employee status of graduate assistants under Pennsylvania Public Employe Relations Act. 

In an earlier decision in Temple University, 32 PPER ¶ 32164 (2001),  the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board had ruled that graduate students were employees if they satisfied certain criteria including receiving compensation for performing services. Based on that precedent, and the facts presented before him at the hearing, Hearing Officer Helmerich concluded that graduate students at Penn State were employees for purposes of collective bargaining, and found that there was a clear identifiable community of interest that made the following unit appropriate:  
Included:  All full-time and regular part-time professional employees who are graduate students on graduate assistantship or traineeship and who perform services as teaching assistants, research assistants, or administrative support assistants.

Excluded: Graduate students on fellowship, management level employes, supervisors, first level supervisors, confidential employees and guards as defined in the Act.

Based on his conclusions, Hearing Officer Helmerich ordered the university to submit to the agency within ten days a current list of the names and addresses of employees eligible for inclusion in the defined unit.  The university has a right to file exceptions to the Hearing Officer's decision.  The filing of exceptions will probably delay the scheduling of a representation election.   D10
Maryland and Hawaii: Bills Seek to Grant Collective Bargaining to GSEs
There is pending legislation in two states to grant collective bargaining rights to graduate student employees at public institutions.
On January 18, 2018, Maryland General Assembly Delegates Korman, Frush, Healey, Jones, Moon, Pena-Melnyk, Sanchez, Tarlau, and A. Washington introduced House Bill 199 that would grant collective bargaining rights to graduate assistants at a state higher education system institution, Morgan State University, and St. Mary's College of Maryland.  The phrase "graduate assistant" includes those who are a teaching, administrative, or research assistant, or in a comparable position, a fellow, or a postdoctoral intern at one of those institutions. 

In Hawaii, Senate Bill 406 is pending that would grant collective bargaining rights to full-time graduate student assistants employed by the University of Hawaii but would deny such rights to part-time graduate student assistants at the university. D11
Boston College: UAW Withdraws GSE Representation Petition
Boston College, NLRB Case No. 01-RC-194148
On February 08, 2018, the NLRB General Counsel  approved a request by the UAW to withdraw its petition seeking to represent a unit of graduate student employees at Boston College and for the revocation of the Certification of Representation issued on September 25, 2017 following a representation election held on September 12 and 13, 2017.  The union has announced an intention of seeking to persuade the college to grant voluntary recognition, and commence negotiations.  

As a result of the petition's withdrawal, Boston College's pending Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election has become moot. The college had argued that the Regional Director erred in asserting jurisdiction over the question of representation and challenged the standards articulated by the NLRB in Pacific Lutheran University, 361 NLRB No. 157 (2014) and Saint Xavier University, 365 NLRB No. 54 (2017) for determining jurisdiction over a religiously-affiliated institution.  The institution also argued that the NLRB's decision in Columbia University, 364 NLRB No. 90 (2016), finding graduate and research assistants are covered under the National Labor Relations Act, was wrongfully decided and should be reversed.   

The jurisdictional issue raised by Boston College will be the subject of a panel discussion at the National Center's 45th annual conference on April 15-17, 2018. The panel will include Charles J. Russo, Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton; Michele Nelson, Iona College, Michael Moreland, Vice Dean and Professsor of Law, Villanova University School of Law, Jacob A. Bennett, Doctoral Student, Department of Education, University of New Hampshire with Gerald M. Cattaro, professor, Fordham University, Center for Faith Based Initiative. D12
University of Chicago: AAUP-AFT Withdraws Representation Petition
University of Chicago, 13-RC-198325
On February 13, 2018, the NLRB General Counsel approved a request by AAUP-AFT to withdraw its petition seeking to represent graduate student employees (GSE) at the University of Chicago.  The withdrawal took place four months after AAUP-AFT was certified by the National Labor Relations Board to represent the GSE bargaining unit of 2,457.  

The following was the at-issue unit at the University of Chicago:
Included:  All graduate students who are full-time and regular part-time teaching assistants, research assistants, course assistants, workshop coordinators, writing interns, preceptors, language assistants, instructors, lecturers, lectors, and teaching interns in the School of Divinity, School of Social Services Administration, Division of Social Sciences, Division of Humanities, Division of Biological Sciences, and Division of Physical Sciences employed by the Employer at its campus in Chicago, Illinois. 
Excluded:  All other employees, managerial employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.D13
Yale University: UNITE-HERE Withdraws GSE Representation Petitions
Yale University, NLRB Case Nos. 01-RC-183014, 01-RC-183016, 01-RC-183022, 01-RC-183025, 01-RC-183031, 01-RC-183038, 01-RC-183043, and 01-RC-183050 
On February 12, 2018, the NLRB Region 1 Director approved the request by UNITE-HERE to withdraw eight petitions for departmentally-based micro-units of graduate student employees at Yale University.  The petitions were withdrawn following the issuance of certifications in 2017 making UNITE-HERE the exclusive representative of the eight bargaining units following representation elections.  

The withdrawal of the petitions by UNITE-HERE were expected in light of the NLRB Board ruling in PCC Structurals, Inc. 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), which overruled S pecialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011) e nfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013) that had found micro-units of employees appropriate under certain circumstances. D14
University of Pennsylvania: GSE Representation Petition Withdrawn
University of  Pennsylvania, NLRB Case No. 04-RC-199609

On February 16, 2018, the Graduate Employees Together University of Pennsylvania (GET-UP UPENN,) an AFT affiliate, withdrew its petition at the NLRB seeking to be certified as the representative of a GSE unit at that institution. 

The withdrawal comes less than two months after NLRB Region 4 Director Dennis P. Walsh issued a Decision and Direction of Election, which concluded that the following was the appropriate unit:

Included: All graduate students who provide instructional services and/or perform research, including but not limited to Teaching Assistants, Teaching Fellows, Research
Assistants, Research Fellows and Pre-Doctoral Trainees employed by the
Employer in the following schools: Annenberg School for Communication,
Biomedical Graduate Studies, School of Design, Graduate School of Education,
School of Arts and Sciences, School of Engineering and Applied Science, School
of Nursing, School of Social Policy and Practice, and Wharton School;

Excluded: All other employees, educational fellowship recipients, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 

Prior to the withdrawal of the representation petition by GET-UP UPENN, the university had continued its campaign against the unionization effort.  

One example of that campaign was a February 7, 2018 email from Dean of Engineering Vijay Kumar and Deputy Engineering Dean for Research and Innovation Kathleen Stebe to the department's doctoral students, which is reprinted below.  The email is a revealing exposition of values concerning the democratic unionization process and collective bargaining.  Whether the email's content was drafted by others and/or represents the institutional views of the university is unknown.

The email's wording and construct present a negative view of the republican framework created under American collective bargaining law to effectuate workplace democracy.  Under the workplace form of representational democracy, employees are given the right to choose a representative to speak and negotiate on their behalf with their employer.  In the email, Dean Kumar and Deputy Dean Stebe turn the republican framework on its head by creating a false duality between the union "winning" and graduate students "losing" their voice to advocate on their own behalf. 

The email presents the 
petitioned-for representative as a third party rather than as an association seeking to be certified to represent a bargaining unit following an
election.  In their view, an electoral result in favor of representation of graduate student employees would constitute a loss of freedom.  In addition, potential contractual results stemming from the representation, which are analogous to enacted laws by legislative representatives, are portrayed as being inherently oppressive.  
The workplace representation framework is very similar to the political one of electing legislators to represent electoral districts concerning laws and budgets.  Both were designed to insure stability.  In Federalist Papers No. 10, James Madision emphasized that a republican form of governance is necessary to avoid the instability resulting from factionalism caused by individuals or groups of individuals advocating for themselves.  It is troubling that deans at a major university in the 21st Century would seek to portray the fruits of a representative form of democracy as a form of oppression.

West Chester Univ.: Administrator's 1st Amendment Claim Dismissed 
Bradley v. West Chester Univ., U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 17-1588

On January 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision affirming the dismissal of a First Amendment lawsuit brought by Colleen M. Bradley challenging the renewal of her appointment as the Director of Budget and Financial Planning at West Chester University in Pennsylvania.  In her lawsuit, Bradley alleged that her contract was not renewed because of her objections to budgetary reports that were prepared to demonstrate substantial university deficits rather than actual surpluses.  

The federal appellate court concluded that Bradley's objections were not protected speech under the First Amendment because they were made pursuant to her official duties.  In reaching its decision, the court applied the exclusionary rule created by the United States Supreme Court in its decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which makes all speech by public employees pursuant to official duties to be outside of First Amendment protections. D16
Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy 

Journal of CBA Logo  

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.   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.      
We encourage scholars, practitioners, and graduate students in the fields of collective bargaining, labor representation, labor relations, and labor history to submit articles for potential publication. 
The Journal recently published Volume 9 with new research and analysis:

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.
Anti-Intellectualism, Corporatization, and the University by Henry Reichman touches on the culture of anti-intellectualism and connects it to the oft-referenced business model for higher education.    
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.  
Contracts with Community College Adjunct Faculty Members and Potential Supplemental Benefits to Increase Satisfaction by Kimberly Ann Page analyzes the benefits that can be attained for adjunct faculty through collective bargaining based on survey data from New  England community colleges.
Unionization and the Development of Policies for Non-Tenure Track Faculty: A Comparative Study of Research Universities by Karen Halverson Cross provides a cross-sectional analysis of adjunct contracts, covering a sample of research universities from across the nation including those with and without CBAs that include adjunct faculty.
Practitioner Perspective 
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.
National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining
in Higher Education and the Professions |
H unter College, City University of New York
425 E 25th St.
Box 615
New York, NY 10010