Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 07:02:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Faculty Union Update - May 25, 2007
From: ddreed@mtu.edu
To: acadforum-l@mtu.edu
Cc: mgilles@mtu.edu, aquinn@mtu.edu, wjmckill@mtu.edu, jrbaker@mtu.edu

All:

To update you on the negotiations with the faculty union, we completed
the 14th day of negotiations this week after resuming bargaining in
April.  The next scheduled negotiating session is on June 14th.

The University and the union did tentatively agree to a separability
article this week.  In essence, this means that if a single article of
the contract is ever found to be illegal, that the remainder of the
contract remains in effect [instead of voiding the entire contract].

There are three articles where we are in a state of 'no movement', which
means the respective parties have each rejected the other parties
current proposal.

One of the 'no movement' articles is Recognition, which will define
which positions are in and which are out of the bargaining unit.  The
union has indicated that they will file a union clarification hearing
request with MERC.  This is disappointing because the main effect of
this request will be to delay agreement on this article while MERC
schedules and holds a hearing, and then we will wait for the
Administrative Law Judge to issue a recommendation.  At that point, we
will be able to resume negotiations over this issue.  This process
results in a great loss of time, not to mention expense, for both
parties, and in the end will have little or no effect on negotiations
since the parties will not be bound to agree to the Judge's
recommendation in negotiations.  It is possible for us to continue to
negotiate this article while this process works through, and we hope the
union will do so.

When we resume negotiations on June 14, the union has 11 proposals from
the University to respond to, and the University will respond to 5 union
proposals.  Unfortunately, in spite of the agreed upon ground rules, the
union was unable to say which proposals they would be prepared to
discuss when negotiations resume.  The parties agreed to set the agenda
for the next meeting as part of the ground rules in order to make sure
that each side can have people at the table to discuss the issues at
hand. The union's inability to set an agenda for the next session will
likely delay progress of negotiations.

Finally, in my last note I indicated that a part of the union's Fair
Share proposal was to impose a greater cost to those opting out of the
union than would be assessed on those joining the union.  This was
corrected this week with a new union proposal that reduced the service
fee to be paid by non union members to be equal to the union dues.
There are still other possibly illegal components to their proposal.  In
any case, the University has not agreed to the union's Fair Share proposal.

As always, if you have any questions please contact Ellen Horsch or myself.

Dave R