Article 22: Health Insurance
The University presented a revised Health Insurance counterproposal offering to retain the status quo for bargaining unit faculty members’ health insurance. The proposal also addresses other types of insurance beyond medical, dental, and vision benefits — bargaining unit members will have equal access to the same insurance benefits provided by the University to all unclassified University employees on the same terms and conditions.
Article 35: Health and Safety
The University presented a Health and Safety counterproposal which accepts all of the Union’s previously proposed provisions except the contractual requirement that the University provide notice when OR-OSHA inspects or plans to inspect university facilities. The parties tentatively agreed to the proposal, but for nomenclature.
Article 34: Facilities and Support
The University presented a Facilities and Support counterproposal. The University’s proposal accepts the Union’s proposal requiring the University to provide “reasonable” office and desk space, and includes factors to be considered when an arbitrator evaluates the reasonableness of the space provided. The proposal requires that bargaining unit members will be provided with classroom space sufficient to seat the enrollment established at the time the course is opened for student registration and that assigned classrooms also will have the technology identified by the unit member and approved at the time the course is opened for student registration.
The proposal also provides that all Career NTTF and Tenure Track and Tenured bargaining unit members not terminated for cause and who have complied with terms of the collective bargaining agreement and all policies applicable to the use of university information resources will be provided access to a UO email account, a Duckweb account, and university courseware for at least 2 terms after the end of their employment. This benefit strikes a compromise — it accepts the Union’s desire for the benefit to last 2 terms but limits the benefit to Career NTTF and Tenure Track and Tenured bargaining unit members.
Article 2: Academic Classification and Rank
The University presented an Academic Classification and Rank counterproposal. The proposal permits a bargaining unit member to petition the Provost for reclassification after the equivalent of two years of employment at 1.0 FTE in the current classification. We rejected the Union’s proposal to form a joint Classification Review Committee to hear petitions for reclassification. The proposal does, however, permit a bargaining unit member to grieve the Provost’s decision regarding classification. We discussed at the table alternatives for the requirement of “time in grade” before a petition for reclassification could be filed.
Article 10: Assignment of Professional Responsibilities
The University presented an Assignment of Professional Responsibilities counterproposal. The proposal requires the development of written policies for the assignment of professional responsibilities at the department or unit level. The policy must address course load; service expectations; research, scholarship and creative activity; professional development related to teaching, research and service; undergraduate and graduate advising; and student contact and communication. The University’s proposal leaves “course load” and “service expectations” undefined to allow departments and units to define those responsibilities at the local level. The proposal also requires that policies describe a process for accounting for individual faculty needs when assigning course load, which includes the consideration of factors including new course preparations; balance of workload components based on faculty review, promotion and tenure, professional development expectations and agenda for research, scholarship and creative activity; administrative duties; timing of activities; and job description.
The proposal reserves the Provost’s right to modify scheduled assignments, provided that the department or unit head discusses changes with the faculty member before they are made.
The proposal also addresses overload assignments. It provides that a faculty member can refuse overload assignments without being subject to discipline or termination. The proposal strikes language that mandates that teaching classes above the number defined in the unit’s workload expectation for 1.0 FTE automatically constitutes overload work to allow faculty members and department heads to continue to agree that the faculty member will teach an additional class in exchange for a class release in a different term.
Article 25: Termination without Cause for Financial Circumstances or Reorganization
The University presented a Termination without Cause for Financial Circumstances or Reorganization counterproposal. The Article has an effective date of July 1, 2014 because that is the “start date” of the university’s new governing board.
The proposal reserves the University’s right to terminate the employment of a bargaining unit member without cause as a result of financial exigency; reallocation of resources; reorganization of degree or curriculum offerings or requirements; reorganization of academic or administrative structures, programs, or functions; or curtailment or abolition of one or more programs or functions, but imposes certain requirements on the University with respect to implementing such decisions. The proposal mandates the considerations that must factor into any such decisions to terminate the employment of faculty and requires the University to provide the Union with at least 30 days’ notice prior to the effective date of a termination.
We repeated that the governance of the University is not a matter of collective bargaining to be overseen by an outside arbitrator and governance is not a term or condition of employment as that term is defined by law — governance of the UO must be governed by state law and Board policy as between the Board, the president, and the faculty. Our proposal does, however, mandate that the Board follow the law and university policy in determining financial exigency or department reductions or eliminations. We reiterated that the University is willing to bargain with the Union over the impacts of such decisions on bargaining unit faculty members. Consistent with that structure, the proposal does not grant the Union the contractual right to review decisions relating to financial exigency or program or department reductions or eliminations for financial or educational reasons. Similarly, the determination of a financial exigency or that program or department reductions or eliminations should be made is not grievable. The proposal does provide the right to grieve whether the decision to terminate employment complied with applicable procedures and policies and whether the financial exigency or program or department reductions or eliminations is a “but for” cause of a personnel action.
The proposal provides that, before terminating a tenure-track or career NTTF bargaining unit faculty member, the University will make a reasonable, good faith effort to place the bargaining unit member concerned in another suitable position within the university. The proposal also dictates notice obligations: bargaining unit faculty members would be informed of a termination within certain time frames and such notice will contain the effective date of termination, the reason for termination, and a statement of recall rights. Bargaining unit faculty members will also receive up to a year’s notice of a termination without cause under this Article.
