Article 9: Contracts
The University presented a Contracts counterproposal. The proposal requires written notification of appointment or reappointment. The proposal returns language previously struck by the Union which clarifies that notice by any means other than in writing is not valid. We explained that this language is important for providing clarity and certainty. The proposal delineates the minimum content for notices of appointment and reappointment and also outlines other information the University must provide with respect to a bargaining unit faculty member’s duties, responsibilities and instructional expectations.
In its proposal, the University agrees to extend the contract durations for non-funding contingent Career NTTF positions to:
- 1 fiscal or academic year for bargaining unit faculty members at the lowest rank of the classification
- 2 fiscal or academic years for bargaining unit faculty members at the middle rank of the classification
- 3 fiscal or academic years for bargaining unit faculty members at the highest rank of the classification
The University’s proposal does not agree to the Union’s proposed mandate that all Career NTTF have an expectation of continued employment. The University’s proposal strikes a compromise, however, by extending the duration of contracts to provide increased job security and certainty. We explained that the University is concerned that such expectation will convert what has always been a contract position to one similar to de facto tenure, eroding the flexibility to make changes and adjustments as contracts expire.
The University’s proposal agrees to provide notice of renewal or nonrenewal of an appointment that is not funding contingent no later than May 15th of the last year of the member’s current appointment for fiscal year appointments, and May 1st for academic year appointments. The University will be contractually required to provide notice of renewal, nonrenewal, or termination for lack of funding of a funding-contingent appointment as soon as practicable. A bargaining unit faculty member who does not receive timely notice according to the timelines above may continue to work under the terms and conditions of the expiring appointment until notice of renewal or non-renewal is provided.
The proposal also agrees to significantly limit the duration of appointments in the Adjunct classification. We proposed that a position in the Adjunct classification should not last more than the equivalent of three years at 1.0 FTE, however Adjunct positions may extend beyond three years or a position may be filled by adjuncts on an ongoing basis, if appropriate for pedagogical or programmatic reasons. The parties discussed what types of justifications for extension of an Adjunct position do and do not qualify as pedagogical or programmatic reasons. The University also agrees that it will not appoint a Career NTTF bargaining unit members at an FTE level of below .50 FTE to preclude providing benefits and that aggregate appointments across two or more departments that total .50 FTE or above will receive benefits.
The proposal sets forth that the initial appointment in the TTF Professor classification will usually be to the rank of assistant professor for a period of three years unless the University and the bargaining unit faculty member agree to a shorter duration. The proposal addresses mid-term reviews of TTF bargaining unit members and dictates the timing of notice of nonrenewal for full-time, tenure-track bargaining unit members when non-renewal is based on reasons other than just cause or financial exigency.
Article 3: Shared Governance
The Union presented a Shared Governance counterproposal. The proposal includes a statement affirming both parties’ commitment to shared governance and mandates that the UO Constitution remain in existence for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement subject to review and modification in accordance with applicable Constitutional procedures. The proposal also adds to language from the University’s last proposal regarding departmental and unit policies on shared governance. The University’s proposal described the procedure for development of such policies, while the Union’s proposal also mandates that the policies address certain substantive matters. Under the Union’s proposal, policies for internal governance must include provisions for appropriate documentation of decisions and for inclusion of Career NTTF, who shall have, with a few exceptions that must be justifiable (e.g. Tenure Review/Promotion Committees), full participation and voting rights in formulating departmental or unit policies. The Union’s proposal strikes statutory references to, and descriptions of, Senate Bill 270 and the statutory role of faculty under Oregon law.
The Union’s proposal opens the entire Shared Governance article to grievance and opens allegations regarding departmental or unit internal governance policies to arbitration as well. Under the proposal, the Union would have the contractual right to grieve any decisions of the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon regarding choice of method of instruction, subject matter to be taught, academic standards for admitting students, and standards of student competence in a discipline if the Union considers the Board’s decision a non-compelling departure from the faculty judgment. Those grievances of the direct actions of the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon would be heard by the Provost.
Article 7: Academic Freedom and Responsibility
The Union presented an Academic Freedom and Responsibility counterproposal which returns language previously proposed by the Union as to the contours of academic freedom. The proposal agrees that academic freedom carries with it certain responsibilities, although the Union’s proposal defines those responsibilities differently than previously proposed by the University. The proposal strikes language regarding the appropriate caution a bargaining unit faculty member must take with respect to representing oneself as speaking on behalf of the University.
The proposal extends faculty free speech rights beyond the protections provided by the state and federal constitutions—the proposal grants bargaining unit faculty members the right to address any matter of institutional policy or action without institutional discipline or restraint. The parties further discussed the scope of speech for which the Union seeks increased protection beyond the protections afforded by the First Amendment.
At the request of the Union, Ernst Benjamin from the AAUP spoke at the bargaining table about Shared Governance and Academic Freedom.
Article 2: Academic Classification and Rank
The Union presented an Academic Classification and Rank counterproposal. The Union’s proposal eliminates limitations on the frequency at which a bargaining unit faculty member may petition for reclassification. The proposal also sets forth the guiding principles for evaluating requests for reclassification from adjunct to career appointments. The parties further discussed language to address the timing of petitions for reclassification.
Article 34: Facilities and Support
The Union presented a Facilities and Support counterproposal. The proposal agrees that there may be circumstances in which the length or scheduled time of a class period makes it difficult to provide a single classroom for the entire class meeting. The proposal creates a contractual obligation that the University take reasonable steps to eliminate these exceptions by anticipating late enrollment and the needs of programs where length and schedule time of class periods may be outside the norm elsewhere in the university. The proposal also returns the contractual obligation that reasonable technological support will be made available.
Article 50: Conflict of Interest and Commitment
The Union presented a Conflict of Interest and Commitment counterproposal which is based predominantly on current Conflict of Interest policy, with some exceptions. The proposal identifies and describes activities that do and do not require approval. The proposal outlines the procedure for obtaining approval of activities, the requirements for written disclosure and requests for approval, and the criteria for reviewing requests for approval. The proposal also provides that a bargaining unit faculty member dissatisfied with the decision of the Provost regarding a request for approval of an outside activity may pursue grievance and arbitration.
