Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:44:04 -0400 From: Dave Reed <ddreed@mtu.edu> To: acadforum-l@mtu.edu, Glenn Mroz <gdmroz@mtu.edu>, Ellen Horsch <eshorsch@mtu.edu>, Deborah Lassila <dlassila@mtu.edu>, Anita Quinn <aquinn@mtu.edu>, Jim Baker <jrbaker@mtu.edu>, mkhaapap@mtu.edu Subject: Faculty Union Update - March 14, 2007 All, As a follow-up to last week's email from Glenn, I wanted to fill you in a bit more on the details of the situation with the AAUP Faculty Union. Judge Stern's ruling is complex, and I urge you to read it at: http://www.admin.mtu.edu/hro/laborrel/faculty/ULPruling030607.pdf Current Situation: At this time, the judge has made recommended findings as described in Glenn's email. Judge Stern's findings are complex. Briefly, she found that: - the University did not consult sufficiently with the Union on the amount of the 2005 raises - however the raises were given in accordance with established practice, - the University must consult/negotiate with the Union on merit, marketplace/equity, and promotion increases for next year and beyond. - the raises were given to reward faculty members, not to cause a decertification petition - however she found that the raises would influence a decertification election and her Recommended Order dismisses the decertification petition, requires 30-day notice posting position, and requires us to re-enter negotiations. - importantly, and contrary to persistent Union claims, the University complied with Michigan Law in not bargaining with the Union once a decertification petition by the faculty created a question concerning representation- in other words, bargaining while a decertification petition is pending with either the Union or the Petitioner would have shown favoritism and the University must remain neutral in such disputes. Importantly, past union communications have implied that the judge would impose financial penalties and order across the board raises to be given to faculty. As noted above, the Judge did not impose any financial penalties and instructed us to adhere to past practice in awarding merit, marketplace, equity, and promotional increases during the negotiations. Going forward: The last point concerning employer neutrality during a question concerning representation is critical. When a decertification petition is pending, we cannot legally negotiate with any party. We are now in a 20 day period in which all parties may consider their options under the Judge's recommendation. If there are no exceptions (appeals) in this time period, it is likely that the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) will accept Judge Stern's findings, and the petition will be dismissed to allow negotiations to begin again. If there is an appeal by any party during this time, the decertification petition will stay in force, and there will be no negotiations until the exceptions are resolved. At such time that MERC accepts the ruling, we must post the Recommended Order for 30 days, and enter negotiations to reach a contract settlement. Should another question concerning representation arise before a contract agreement can be reached, negotiations would again cease under Michigan Law until such time that the question concerning representation is resolved. Dave R -- David D Reed Vice President for Research |