Article 34: Facilities and Support
The University presented a Facilities and Support counterproposal, which accepts the changes proposed by the Union with the exception of a few edits to the section addressing the assignment of classroom space when the length or scheduled time of a class makes it difficult to provide a single classroom for the entire class meeting. After caucusing, the Union requested certain clarifying language to which the University agreed. The parties tentatively agreed to the Article, but for nomenclature.
Article 2: Academic Classification and Rank
The University presented an Academic Classification and Rank counterproposal. The proposal amends the provisions addressing petitions for reclassification to reflect previous discussions at bargaining table. The bargaining teams discussed additions to the article to provide further clarification about the process for petitioning for reclassification. After caucusing, the Union presented a counterproposal with a few additional changes, including adjustments to the definition of adjunct and retired bargaining unit faculty members. The parties are very close to agreement on this Article.
Article 33: Professional Development
The Union presented a professional development counterproposal, which amends language regarding departmental and unit policies regarding professional development funds and clarifies that both NTTF and TTF bargaining unit faculty members have the opportunity to compete for professional development funds. The parties tentatively agreed to the article, but for nomenclature.
Article 9: Contracts
The Union presented a Contracts counterproposal. The proposal returns language granting Career NTTF the legal right to a reasonable expectation of continued employment. We reiterated our concerns that a reasonable expectation of continued employment looks similar to de facto tenure, fundamentally changes the nature of a contract position, and eliminates the flexibility to make changes upon expiration of a contract. We also pointed out that when the policy statement concerning an expectation of continued employment for Career NTTFs was adopted in 2007, NTTFs faced an “up or out” requirement regarding promotion, which the University has agreed to delete in this Agreement.
The proposal changes the requirements regarding the length of contracts, extending the longest duration to a minimum of a four-year contract. The proposal also changes the timeline under which the University is required to provide Career NTTF with notice of non-renewal, so that University is required to provide notice of non-renewal earlier and on timeline as TTF faculty.
Memorandum of Understanding on the One-Time Reclassification of Adjunct Faculty
The Union presented a proposed Memorandum of Understanding on the one-time reclassification of Adjunct faculty once an Agreement is ratified. The Union’s proposal sets forth a review process for adjunct positions, which differentiates between short term appointments and long term appointments. The proposal requires that, as soon as practicable after the effective date of the CBA, the head of each department or unit will examine the position held by each bargaining unit faculty member classified as adjunct. If an adjunct has held his or her position for all or part of AY 2011-2012 and AY 2012-2013 and has been issued a contract for all or part of AY 2013-2014 (a “short term appointment”), then the position will remain classified as adjunct unless the head and bargaining unit faculty member agree that intention of the appointment was that it would be an ongoing appointment.
If the adjunct bargaining unit faculty member has served in the same position for three years or more prior to AY 2013-2014 and has been issued a contract for AY 2013-2014 (a “long term appointment”), then his or her position and appointment to that position will be considered as follows:
- If the head determines that the position is ongoing without substantial changes in the assigned work and that the faculty member has performed to expected standards, then the position must be reclassified to a Career NTTF. In this circumstance, the incumbent must have the opportunity to continue in the Career NTTF position for the 2013-2014 academic year—the department is not permitted to conduct a search to fill the Career position at the time the Career position is created. We expressed concern about filling NTTF Career positions without a national search, which is current policy at the UO. We also expressed concern that the Union’s proposal that all Career NTTF have a reasonable expectation of employment would prevent a national search for the Career NTTF position even after the incumbent’s contract expired.
- If the head determines that the position is not ongoing beyond the AY 2013-2014 contract (i.e., it will be reorganized or duties will be changed), the position will remain classified as adjunct and the position must be eliminated at the end of the AY 2013-2014, unless it is continued as an adjunct position for pedagogical or programmatic reasons (as defined in Article 9).
Under the proposal, if an adjunct faculty member disagrees with the decision of the unit head regarding whether the member’s position is ongoing, the adjunct may challenge the head’s decision through the grievance process. The proposal also provides that all reclassifications to Career positions are retroactive to July 1, 2013 (for 12-month appointments) or September 16, 2013 (for 9-month appointments).
Discussion on Compensation
The Union again voiced its disappointment with the University’s salary offer—which provides an average increase over three years of 10.3 percent for tenure track faculty and 11.4 percent for NTTF. The bargaining team informed us that the offer was simply too low, and reflected, in their view, a disregard for the faculty. We responded noting that we had met every one of the Union’s stated priorities with a substantive response to address it and that the parties had already agreed to significant systematic changes to faculty salary, assignment, promotion and tenure, and similar matters that will reshape many of the University’s processes and procedures and bring clarity and predictability. We objected to the Union’s assertion that faculty are not a University priority, citing the $14 million for faculty salaries and other economic benefits on the table. We are very disappointed by this continuing response from the Union’s bargaining team, in light of all that the parties have accomplished, including securing significant pay increases in the first collective bargaining agreement.
