University, AAUP continue negotiations

This week will prove to be decisive in the continuing negotiations between the university administration and the MTU chapter of the American Association of University Professors. Now entering their 13th month of active talks, the two parties are meeting this week to discuss another four articles of the 32-article contract. The negotiations are three years old this month, and fewer than half of the contracts articles have been certified. In those three years, the negotiations have dealt with lawsuits and internal crisis. While talks resumed again in April, animosity still persists as the hearing for an Unfair Labor Practice suit is decided later this month and talks of another, both in relation to selective salary raises made by the university outside of talks with the MTU-AAUP and filed by the union, hang over the negotiating table.

The MTU-AAUP held its charter meetings in Oct. 2004 and, upon ratification of their constitution in Jan. 2005, pursued talks with the administration for the adoption of a new employee contract. The contract negotiations began in March 2005 and met its first stopping point as Michigan Tech conducted its annual salary increases during the summer of 2005. As the new contract had yet to be completed, this was done individually without using the union as the faculty negotiating body. A ULP suit was filed on behalf of the MTU-AAUP in Oct. 2005 and the University halted negotiations. Three days after the suit filing, Professor Michael Roggeman, a member of the AAUP chapter, filed a petition to hold a decertification election of the MTU-AAUP. As the validity of the chapter was then under question as the faculty’s negotiating body, the University contended that it could not continue negotiations until the petition had run its course, while the MTU-AAUP argued that the petition was a result of the University’s lack of effort within the negotiations up to that point. The stalemate continued until March 6, 2007, when a decision was presented by Justice Julia Stern in favor of the MTU-AAUP, at which point talks were scheduled and negotiations resumed a month later.

Ellen Horsch, VP for Administration of MTU, commented that since the resumption of talks in April, the two parties have met 35 days and have signed off on 13 of the 32 articles. There are currently three articles in a state of “no movement,” meaning neither side is willing to yield position. According to Horsch, “There has been good give-and-take between the two negotiating teams, many items have been agreed to, and progress is being made on what remains.”

The MTU-AAUP responded less positively: “As to the progress of negotiations, we are making progress, but very slowly,” stated Prof. Marilyn Cooper, President of the MTU-AAUP. “We have called in a labor mediator on two occasions, and we have now filed a petition for fact finding,” she continued, further relaying that they have asked the Michigan Employment Relations Commission to assign a fact-finder to study the proposals currently under negotiation. The goal of this step is to show that “[…] the MTU administration has approached negotiation with a fixed intention not to reach an agreement. “

Ms. Horsch disagrees: “Let me reassure you that Michigan Tech has bargained in good faith and will continue to do so with the Faculty Union.” Contention by the MTU-AAUP suggests, however, that not only has the University “failed to offer meaningful counter-proposals,” but that it has used outside counsel “…who have a limited ability to meet at reasonable times … [and] lacks the authority to make agreements at the table,” according to Cooper.

Communication on the University’s part calls into question the credibility of the AAUP’s claims. Taken from an e-mail sent to the Academic Forum and the AAUP negotiations team, Horsch states:

“The University has offered several Interim Salary Proposals, and on July 18 [we] gave the AAUP our “last, best and final” offer on an interim Salary ... The Union continues to threaten the University with another Unfair Labor Practices Charge if we implement a merit salary increase for 2007-2008, but since we have not yet been able to come to an agreement with the AAUP, the alternative would be a wage freeze which would not be in the best interest of the faculty or the institution, nor would it be consistent with our legal obligation to preserve the status quo during bargaining.”

She goes on to relay that the AAUP broke practice July 24 by presenting a “complete contract proposal package” intended as an “all-or-nothing” proposal and attached to an expiration date for response of August 7. She described the proposal as “incomplete,” having left out “several important unresolved issues” and containing “a salary package which was also unacceptable.” The salary package, Article 21 of the contract, was a request to accept a salary proposal made by the University for 2008-2009 as a 2007-2008 measure.

The question left to answer by the MERC is whether difficulties experienced by the negotiation teams are a result of the University stonewalling in order to squeeze the union into another decertification, or a result of the union stonewalling in order to force university decision with threat of another ULP.

Both sides will continue to meet and have four sessions scheduled this week. The University currently owes the AAUP three responses on articles with a deadline of today. The AAUP owes the University nine responses on articles “and have given definite response dates on one of the articles,” according to Horsch.

The AAUP awaits the ruling on the ULP suit, now scheduled for Oct. 30 – Nov. 1, in hopes it will settle the long shadow perched over the negotiation table and accelerate the process. Horsch determines to stay positive, however. “The University seeks the best contract for the faculty and the University. … The typical length of time to negotiate an initial contract generally is 18 – 24 months; we have been negotiating only for a total of 13 months and [are] making good progress.”