NATIONAL CENTER
for the S tudy of C ollective B argaining in 
H igher E ducation and the P rofessions
E-Note
  
 
   
 
Follow us on Twitter @HigherEd_CB
                                                                                                 January, 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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


13.    California: Graduate Student Researchers Granted Right to Organize



16.    Lane Community College: ULP Filed Alleging Anti-Union Discrimination   
 
17.    National Center to Participate in NYSBA Meeting and Boston LERA Panel

18.    New Book of Interest: The Integration of the UCLA School of Law
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.

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 A2
Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy: New Volume Released

Journal of CBA Logo  
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
The National Center is pleased to announce the release of Volume 9 of the Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy with new research and analysis.  The latest volume was co-edited by Jeffrey Cross, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Eastern Illinois University, and Steve Hicks, Professor of English, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania.    
 
Op-Eds 
 
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.    
 
Articles 
 
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.

 
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 in future volumes. A3 
Announcement: Gary Rhoades is a New JCBA Co-Editor
With the publication of the recent volume of the Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, Steve Hicks's term as a co-editor has ended .  Mr. Hicks has served as a co-editor since the journal's third volume, and the National Center thanks him for his many important contributions.
 
We are pleased to announce that Gary Rhoades will be replacing Mr. Hicks as a co-editor.  Mr. Rhoades is a Professor and Director of the University of Arizona's Center for the Study of Higher Education, and a former AAUP General Secretary.  He is the author of Managed Professionals (1998, SUNY Press) and Academic Capitalism and the New Economy (with Sheila Slaughter, 2004, Johns Hopkins University Press).  He is currently working on a new volume tentatively titled Managing to be Different:  
The Delphi Award for Faculty Models that Support Student Success
by Adrianna Kezar, Professor for Higher Education, University of Southern California
 
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 www.thechangingfaculty.org).  
 
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   delphiaward@thechangingfaculty.org
 
For More Information:

Details for the award can be found at our website: www.delphiaward.org A5
Janus v. AFSCME: Potential Statutory Models of 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 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.

An agency fee requirement is a form of union security, first introduced in the private sector, and held to be constitutional in the public sector in  Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).  However, in majority decisions written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over the past few years, the Supreme Court has questioned the constitutionality of mandating non-members to pay an agency fee for representation by a certified or recognized union in the public sector.

If the plaintiff in  Janus is fully successful before the Supreme Court, Abood will be reversed and the open shop will become a federal constitutional mandate for the first time.  Such a ruling  would mean that a public sector union certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit will be obligated to represent non-members for free, and will still be subject to duty of fair representation claims by dissatisfied non-members. 
 
Both before and following the Janus decision it is important for scholars and practitioners to examine the statutory, decisional, and practical history of public sector collective bargaining statutes, including those that did not originally include an agency fee obligation for non-members.

In this article, we highlight public policy approaches taken by Florida and California that might be followed in other states following the Janus decision.
 
Florida
 
Since 1974, the public sector collective bargaining law of Florida, an open shop state, has included a provision that modifies the exclusive representation model by not requiring an incumbent union to process or arbitrate grievances by non-members.  Section 447.401 states "that certified employee organizations shall not be required to process grievances for employees who are not members of the organization."  
 
In Polk Education Association (McDonald),19 FPER ¶24111 (1993), the Florida Public Employment Relations Commission ruled that a union did not violate its duty of fair representation by revoking an employee's membership, returning his dues, and refusing to process a grievance with respect to events that preceded the employee joining the union. 

As the decision demonstrates, the Florida statute grants public sector unions wide discretion as to whether to provide representation concerning a grievance by non-dues-paying unit members. The law does not bar a union from choosing to pursue a grievance by a non-member or seeking to intervene in an arbitration when the outcome might have unit-wide consequences.

By narrowing the exclusive representation model, the Florida model lessens the financial burden on a union in an open shop state with respect to non-members but it is not without its critics.  See, Dennis O. Lynch, Incomplete Exclusivity and Fair Representation: Inevitable Tensions in Florida's Public Sector Labor Law, 37 U. Miami L. Rev. 573 (1983). 

A potential means for expanding on the Florida model would be amendments to public sector collective bargaining laws that explicitly provide that a union is not required to represent a non-member during disciplinary interrogations and hearings, during meetings with supervisors, or with respect to the pursuit of statutory workplace claims. 

The Florida model of modified exclusive representation is more conservative in approach than the members-only model of unionization being advocated by some scholars and practitioners. See, Charles J. Morris, The Blue Eagle at Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights in the American Workplace (2005, Cornell University Press)(examining members-only unions under the National Labor Relations Act). Under that model, the union would not represent non-members in collective bargaining or in contract enforcement. One problem with the adoption of a members-only model is that a public employer might grant to non-members the same or greater level of benefits than those negotiated by the union. The public employer's grant of such benefits would undermine the value of unionization even though the employer's action might be subject to statutory or constitutional challenge.

California
 
Another model that might be emulated in other jurisdictions  is the California law enacted last year relating to union access to new employee orientations and information about employees in a bargaining unit.  

On June 27, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the new law into effect, which mandates public employers to grant certified or recognized unions with notice and access to new employee orientations.

The structure, time, and manner of access under the new law is subject to negotiations, and the law mandates the reopening of all existing contracts for the limited purpose of negotiating over the issue of access to new employee orientations. An impasse in negotiations concerning access is subject to resolution through compulsory interest arbitration. Either party can demand interest arbitration within 45 days after the first bargaining session or within 60 days after the initial request to commence negotiations, whichever comes first. 

The grant of statutory access to orientations provides public sector unions with a potential opportunity to explain to new employees the benefits of union membership, as well as the mission, history, and activities of the union.

The new California law also mandates public employers to provide the union representing a bargaining unit with the following information about all new and current employees in the unit:
          •  name
          •  home address
          •  job title
          •  department
          •  work location
          •  work, home, and personal cellular telephone numbers
          •  personal email addresses on file with the employer
The information concerning new employees must be provided within 30 days after a new employee commences employment or by the first pay period.  The information concerning all employees in the bargaining unit must be provided to the union at least every 120 days unless the parties have negotiated an agreement requiring more frequent or more detailed information. 

In enacting the new law, the California Legislature recognized that the ability of a public sector union to communicate with and represent bargaining unit members "is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of state labor relations statutes" and to ensure "harmonious public employment relations." 

California's new statutory grant of greater union access can help facilitate the breaking down of the personal distance and informational wall between public sector unions and bargaining unit members, and can lead to greater employee participation in collective activities concerning workplace issues.

Janus Panel Planned for the National Center's Annual Conference

There will be a panel discussion at the National Center's annual conference on April 15-17, 2018 that will examine non-statutory means of responding to the Janus decision:

Responding to Janus: Collective Bargaining and Membership Engagement
with Gary Rhoades, Professor and Director, Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona, Scott Launier, President, United Faculty of Florida, UCF, Michael Klein, Interim Executive Director, William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy, Stockton University, Ruben Garcia, Associate Dean,for Faculty Development, and Research, William S. Boyd School of Law Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Jamie Dangler, UUP Vice-President for Academics, Moderator.  A6
Commentaries on Bargaining Under New California Union Access Law
Below are two commentaries relating to bargaining that has taken place under the new California law mandating union access to new employee orientations. The commentary by Kathy Sheffield was originally posted on the website of the California Faculty Association.
 
CFA and CSU Chancellor Reach Agreement on New Employee Orientation Requirements  
by Kathy Sheffield, Director of Representation, California Faculty Association
 
Effective July 1, 2017, California's Assembly Bill 119 went into effect, requiring the CSU, as well as other public employers in the state, to provide unions with information about new and current employees. The information includes home addresses, phone numbers, and other information useful for the union to reach represented employees. The law also provides that the information is not subject to the public records law, thus preventing misuse of employee data.
 
Further, the law requires the CSU to bargain with all of its bargaining units over participation in new employee orientations.  The law requires public employers to negotiate with unions over time, place, and manner for meaningful union access to new employees at their orientation or "onboarding," whether it happens "in person, online, or through other means."  
 
In its findings, the legislature declared, "In order for exclusive representatives to discharge their legal duties and communicate with public employees, it is necessary that public agencies provide information regarding those public employees to exclusive representatives." For unions, this expressly articulated legislative intent, along with other favorable provisions, provides a good framework for bargaining.

CFA is among the first unions in the state to complete its bargaining for new employee orientation and employee information.  The CFA-CSU Memorandum of Understanding can be viewed here.
 
The CFA-CSU agreement recognizes the diversity of "onboarding" practices for CSU faculty and provides for meaningful union access to new employees regardless of the orientation and onboarding they receive.  For example, at orientation events, CFA is provided up to 30 minutes in scheduled programs for new faculty.  CFA will be notified of scheduled appointments for onboarding, and will be able to meet with new employees at the scheduled times.  For drop-ins or appointments that CFA staff or member-leaders are unable to attend, the administration has agreed to supply CFA's membership packages on our behalf.
 
We look forward to a full implementation of the new law and to meeting all new employees in the bargaining unit.
 
Bargaining Leads to Agreements Under New California Law on Union Access to New Employee Orientations  
by Rene Castro, A ssistant Vice Chancellor for Employee and Labor Relations, California State University, Office of the Chancellor
 
Under the new law, the California State University (CSU) must provide each union with access to new employee orientations for the bargaining unit it represents. The union must be given no less than 10 days notice of the new employee orientation, except a shorter notice may be provided "where there is an urgent need critical to the employer's operations that was not reasonably foreseeable." (Govt. Code § 3356.)

The new law requires the CSU and the unions to "negotiate regarding the structure, time, and manner of the access of the exclusive representative to a new employee orientation." (Gov. Code § 3557.) "The failure to reach agreement on the structure, time, and manner of the access shall be subject to compulsory interest arbitration pursuant to this section."
 
While some negotiations are still underway, several unions that represent CSU employees have already reached agreement with the Chancellor's Office regarding the implementation of the new law.  The resulting memorandum of agreements (MOUs) reflect the parties recognition that many of our campuses have established orientation processes based on existing agreements and/or practices, including some arrangements that are more favorable than the law requires.  A key factor in the agreements reached to date is that while the negotiated agreements now establish a floor, each campus and their union chapters have the flexibility to arrive at mutually agreed upon campus-based approaches to the implementation of these system-wide MOUs.
 
Another element of the new law is the requirement that CSU provide the unions with the following information for all new hires: "the name, job title, department, work location, work, home, and personal cellular telephone numbers, personal email addresses on file with the employer, and home address of any newly hired employee within 30 days of the date of hire or by the first pay period of the month following hire...." (Govt. Code § 3558).   
 
Virtually all CSU collective bargaining agreements already provide employee information to the union in one manner or another and our approach has been for campuses to continue to provide such information pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreements while simultaneously working with campus chapters to look at mechanisms to incorporate newly mandated information into existing practices.  Not surprisingly, a common goal of the parties going into negotiations regarding the implementation of the new law was to not disrupt what was already working.  Consequently, the parties specifically included language that reflects the spirit of cooperation intended by the parties and a recognition that the MOU was not intended to undermine or discourage campus and local union chapters from developing and/or maintaining mutually agreed upon campus-based practices.
 
The MOUs reached to date run through December 31, 2018, and will be extended automatically if the parties have not agreed to new terms.  However, consistent with the new law, the parties will go to interest arbitration if they are unable to reach agreement within 60 days of bargaining over a successor agreement for new employee orientations.
 
CSU has posted all of the bargaining unit specific MOUs on our website.A7
Seattle University: Representation Effort by Adjunct Faculty Withdrawn  
Seattle University, NLRB Case Nos. 19-CA-185605 and 19-RC-122863  

After nearly four years of legal resistance by Seattle University to unionization efforts by its adjunct faculty, SEIU was permitted to withdraw its unfair labor practice charge concerning the university's refusal to bargain, after disclaimed interest in representing the adjunct faculty unit certified by the NLRB. The decision by SEIU was made jointly with the faculty organizing committee, according to a student newspaper article.

The representation petition was filed on February 20, 2014, which Seattle University challenged, contending that the adjunct faculty were managerial under NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980) and that the NLRB should not assert jurisdiction on the grounds that the school was a religiously-affiliated institution under NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979).   
 
Following the NLRB's rejection of those arguments in  Seattle University, 364 NLRB No. 84 (2016), SEIU was certified on September 26, 2016 to represent the adjunct faculty unit after the tallying of ballots.  Thereafter, Seattle University refused to bargain resulting in SEIU filing an unfair labor practice charge, which resulted in the issuance of a complaint and a motion for summary judgment by the NLRB General Counsel in October and November 2016.   
 
On October 18, 2017, SEIU filed a motion with the NLRB seeking to remand the case to NLRB Region 19 in order for the Regional Director to approve its request to withdraw the underlying unfair labor practice charge.  Following SEIU's disclaiming of interest in representing the adjunct faculty unit, the case was closed by the NLRB Region 19 Regional Director on January 5, 2018. A8
University of Chicago: NLRB Board Denies Motion for Reconsideration
University of Chicago, NLRB Case No. 13-RC-198365

On January 18, 2018, the NLRB Board issued a decision denying a motion by the University of Chicago seeking reconsideration of the Board's December 15, 2017 decision granting, in part, the university's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative. 

In its December 15, 2017 decision, the NLRB Board ruled 2-1 that a hearing should be held with respect to Objection 2 raised by the University of Chicago concerning the conduct of the election concerning student employees at the university's library.  In that decision, the  Board majority found that the university had raised sufficient facts in its offer of proof warranting a hearing on alleged surveillance by union representatives at a voting location during the June 2017 representation election.A9
Harvard College: Second NLRB Student Employee Election to be Held
Harvard College, NLRB Case No. 01-RC-186442

According to an article in the Harvard Crimson, NLRB Region 1 will be scheduling a 
a second election concerning the petition filed the Harvard Graduate Students Union-UAW (HGSU-UAW), which seeks to represent approximately 3,556 student employees at Harvard University.  

The following is the agreed-upon student employee unit at Harvard:

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, excluding all undergraduate students serving as research assistants, and all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.  A10
University of South Florida: Election Ordered for Adjunct Faculty Unit
University of South Florida, FPERC Case No. RC-2017-007  
 
On December 9, 2017, the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (FPERC) issued a decision and order directing an election concerning a petition filed by SEIU seeking to represent a unit of part-time, non-tenure track faculty at the University of South Florida.  In its decision, FPERC rejected the university's argument that the part-time adjunct faculty are not entitled to unionize because they are designated as "temporary" under university regulations. The agency also rejected the university's argument that the adjunct faculty lack a community of interest under Florida's collective bargaining law.  
 
In reaching its decision, FPERC found the university's regulation was insufficient to deny adjunct faculty the right to unionize under the collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the Florida state constitution and Florida's public sector collective bargaining law.  In addition, the agency found that the facts in the record demonstrated that the adjunct faculty had a reasonable expectation of continued employment.  Lastly, it found that SEIU had met its burden of demonstrating that the proposed unit was appropriate, with the agency citing its recent decisions defining adjunct faculty bargaining units at Broward College and Hillsborough Community College.
 
The following is the adjunct faculty unit found to be appropriate at the University of South Florida:
 
Included: All part-time non-tenure-track faculty (including adjunct faculty, adjuncts-contingent, adjunct, adjunct instruct, skilled craftsman, IntoIPathways, 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 existing bargaining unit, all administrations (including academic advisors, deans, assistants to deans, provost, directors, coordinators, can department chairs), student services advising generalist, 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 additions for teaching, managers, confidential employees and supervisors.A11
University of Pennsylvania: Election Ordered for GSE Unit
University of Pennsylvania, NLRB Case No.04-RC-199609
 
On December 19, 2017, NLRB Regional Director Dennis P. Walsh issued a decision and direction of election concerning a petition filed by the Graduate Employees 
Together-University of Pennsylvania, AFT seeking to represent a unit of graduate students who provide instruction and/or research at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Regional Director Walsh ruled that the petitioned-for graduate student employees are statutory employees pursuant to the NLRB's decision in Trustees of Columbia University, 364 NLRB No. 90 (2016).  However, Regional Director Walsh found that the proposed unit, which excluded student employees in graduate programs at the Wharton School and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was inappropriate based on the NLRB's recent decision in PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017).  In PCC Structurals, Inc., a newly constituted NLRB majority  overturned  Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), enfd. 727  F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013), which permitted the certification of micro-units under certain facts and circumstances.  
 
A manual election will be scheduled at a date, time and place to be specified in a notice issued by Region 4 concerning the following graduate student employee unit found to be appropriate at the University of Pennsylvania: 

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; excluding
all other employees, educational fellowship recipients, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.  A12 
University of Missouri: GSE State Constitutional Litigation Proceeds
Coalition of Graduate Workers v. University of Missouri, Case No. 16BA-CV01634

The Coalition of Graduate Workers, NEA (CGW) and the University of Missouri have each filed motions for summary judgement before Boone County Circuit Court Judge Jeff Harris concerning CGW's claims that university graduate students have collective bargaining rights under the Missouri Constitution, Article I, §29.  CGW is seeking a declaratory judgement and an injunction requiring the university to recognize and bargaining with CGW, while the university seeks dismissal of the lawsuit. 

The core legal issue in the litigation is whether the approximate 2,600 graduate student employees are "employees" within the meaning of Missouri Constitution, Article I, §29, which states that "employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing."  In 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that government employees are employees under the state constitution and therefore have a constitutional right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. See, Independence-NEA v. Independence School District, 223 S.W.3d 131 (Mo. 2007) .

The lawsuit stems from the refusal in 2016 by the University of Missouri to hold an election requested by CGW, among graduate student employees, and to grant voluntary recognition following the results of a subsequent election conducted by the League of Women Voters of Columbia-Boone County on April 18 and 19, 2016.  A13
California: Graduate Student Researchers Granted Right to Organize
On October 15, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law an amendment to the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, which expands the group of student employees entitled to unionize and engage in collective bargaining at the University of California, California State University, and Hastings College of the Law.
The recent amendment results in graduate student researchers at those institutions being able to unionize for purposes of collective bargaining.  A14 
Reed College: Petition filed to Represent Student Housing Advisers 
Reed College, NLRB Case No.  19-RC-213177
 
On January 17, 2018, the Student Workers Coalition-Local 1 Housing Advisers filed a representation petition seeking to represent approximately 52 student housing advisers at Reed College.  The following is the description of the petitioned-for unit: 
 
Included: All student Housing Advisers (HAs);
 
Excluded: Non-Student staff of Reed College's Residence Life Dept. including Resident Directors, student employees of Reed College employed in other departments..A15
Georgetown Univ.: A Non-NLRB Representation Procedure Under Study 
On January 9, 2018, Georgetown University Executive Vice President and Provost
Robert M. Groves and Executive Vice President for Health Services and Executive Dean Edward B. Healton issued a letter to the university concerning the efforts by graduate student employees to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining. 

In their letter, Provost Groves and Dean Healton stated they were considering a proposal by the Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees-AFT for the conduct of a non-NLRB representation election. This type of negotiated procedures have been used at New York University, Cornell University, and the University of Connecticut concerning graduate student unionization. 

Last year, Georgetown University had rejected a November 1, 2017 request by the Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees-AFT for voluntary recognition on the grounds that the "graduate student's relationship with the University is fundamentally an educational one," and that the university's Just Employment Policy is inapplicable to graduate students.   A16 
Lane Community College: ULP Filed Alleging Anti-Union Discrimination
Lane Community College, OERB Case No. UP-032-17

The Lane Community College Education Association has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Lane Community College alleging that it discriminated against faculty member Norman Johnson when it denied his request to enter the part-time faculty pool upon his retirement pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and the past practice of the parties.  A17
National Center to Participate in NYSBA Meeting and Boston LERA Panel
NYSBA Labor and Employment Section Annual Meeting: January 26, 2018

National Center Executive Director Bill Herbert will be chairing a panel entitled
Current Labor Relations Issues in Higher Education at the annual meeting of the New York State Bar Association's Labor and Employment Section in New York City on January 26, 2018.  The other panelists will be Mairead E. Connor, a union-side attorney, and Peter D. Conrad, Proskauer Rose LLP.

The panel will explore the legal issues that impact unionization efforts by faculty, graduate students and post-docs under federal and state labor laws.  In addition, the panel will address  Janus v. AFSCME, a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, and its potential impact on public sector organizing in higher education.  
 
LERA Boston Chapter Winter Meeting: February 1, 2018
 
On February 1, 2018, National Center Executive Director Bill Herbert will be participating in a panel discussion entitled Back to School: Campus Organizing Revisited as part of the LERA Boston Chapter Winter Meeting in Wellesley, Massachusetts.  The other presenters will be Michael Rutherford, Director, of Employee Relations at the University of Massachusetts, and Karen Rosenberg, UAW Region 9A International Representative. A18 
New Book of Interest: The Integration of the UCLA School of Law
Lexington Books recently published an interesting new book The Integration of the UCLA School of Law, 1966-1978 by Miguel Espinoza.  The book describes how a group of law professors at UCLA, including the late Leon Letwin, developed an admissions program, the Legal Education Opportunity Program, that resulted in an expansion of minority students at the school and helped to integrate the legal profession after graduation. A19 
California-AAUP Meeting: February 10, 2018 at Pepperdine University
Online conference registration has begun for the February 10, 2018 annual meeting of the California-AAUP that will take place at Pepperdine University. 

The conference theme is Building and Strengthening Shared Governance: Challenges & Solutions.
  The keynote speaker will be Theresa Montaño,
Vice President, California Teachers Association, Professor of Chicana/Chicano Studies, CSU Northridge, and former member of the National Center's Board of Advisors.  Her subject will be Faculty Resistance & Voice: Shared Governance in Troubling Times.

The conference will include four panels tied with the theme of building and strengthening shared governance:
  • Efforts to Improve Shared Governance at Private Universities
  • CSI CSU: Death by Executive Order.  A Cautionary Tale of the Attempted Murder of Shared Governance
  • Guided Pathways:  Challenges and Solutions for Shared Governance
  • The $48 Fix: Reclaiming the California Master Plan for Higher EducationA20
Bargaining for the Common Good: February 22-24, 2018 at Rutgers Univ.
Registration has begun for the Bargaining for the Common Good in Higher Education Convening that will take place on February 22-24, 2018 at Rutgers University.  It will "bring together leaders from higher education and health care unions, student groups, racial justice and other community organizations from across the country to strategize about how to transform contract negotiations into broader community fights and how to wage inspiring common good campaigns."  For more information, contact Marilyn Sneiderman at  msneiderman@gmail.com
National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining
in Higher Education and the Professions 
national.center@hunter.cuny.edu | http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/ncscbhep
H unter College, City University of New York
425 E 25th St.
Box 615
New York, NY 10010