Current State of Negotiations and Proposals (Click here to hide)

These are the most recent proposals (if any) from the faculty union and the university administration. Notes have been added to subjects that faculty members noted as very important in December of 2020.  
Proposal Area Current Union Proposal Current Administration Proposal
Academic Classification and Rank Maintains current policy, OIT-20-046. Proposal Package from 9/24/20 Classifies faculty as Tenured/Tenure Track (ranked from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor to professor); Non-Tenure Track (ranked as Instructor, Senior Instructor I, Senior Instructor II); and, Librarian. Identifies bargaining unit members as those assigned 0.5 FTE or more of faculty duties. Proposal Package on 9/17/20
Academic Freedom Proposal on 10/15/20 Proposal on 10/22/20
Annual Evaluations of Faculty Proposal Package on 9/24/20 No proposal
Appeals Proposal on 10/22/20 No proposal
Arbitration Proposal on 10/22/20 Proposal on 10/25/20
Association Dues / Dues Deduction Tentative Agreement on 10/15/20
Association Rights Proposal on 10/15/20 Proposal on 10/22/20
Benefits Proposal on 5/11/20 Proposal on 8/25/20
Compensation Proposal Package on 9/24/20 Proposal on 8/25/20
Definitions Proposal on 12/5/19 No proposal
Distribution of Agreement Tentative Agreement on 2/27/20
Donated Leave Bank / Sick Leave Pool Proposal on 7/14/20 Proposal on 6/8/20
Grievances Tentative Agreement on 10/15/20
Force Majeur No proposal Proposal on 8/11/20
Fringe Benefits Proposal on 7/28/20 Proposal on 6/8/20
Intellectual Property Proposal on 4/6/20 Proposal on 10/22/20
Labor Management Committee Tentative Agreement on 4/20/20
Leaves Proposal on 8/6/20 Proposal on 10/8/20
Management Rights Proposal on 4/27/20 Proposal on 5/11/20
No Strike / No Lockout Proposal on 5/18/20 Proposal on 5/11/20
Non-Discrimination Tentative Agreement on 4/27/20
Notices and Communication Tentative Agreement on 4/27/20
Notices of Appointment (NOA) Requires NOAs to be sent by July 1 of each year. NOAs will include more information regarding salary, progress towards tenure, full period of appointment, statement that positions are subject to our collective bargaining agreement. Tenure review results will be communicated by the end of Winter Term. Non-renewal notices will be sent by July 30 of the year prior to the end of a faculty member's contract. Non-renewal notices for non-tenure track faculty will be sent by December 1 of the calendar year of the faculty member's current term of appointment. Proposal on 9/17/2020 NOAs will be sent by August 15 and will include a statement that positions are subject to our collective bargaining agreement. Proposal Package on 9/17/20
NTTF Promotion Proposal Package on 9/24/20 No proposal
Outside Activities Proposal on 6/24/20 Proposal on 4/6/20
Personnel Files Tentative Agreement on 7/15/20
Position Description Proposal Package on 9/24/20 Proposal Package on 9/17/20
Preamble Tentative Agreement on 2/27/20
Professional Development Proposal on 6/23/20 Proposal on 7/28/20
Progressive Discipline / Termination Proposal Package on 9/24/20 Proposal on 10/15/20
Recognition Recognizes the faculty union as the sole bargaining unit of the faculty. Proposal on 5/11/2020 Recognizes the faculty union as the sole bargaining representative of the faculty. Defines faculty at 0.5 FTE who hold rank of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Senior Instructor II, Senior Instructor I, Instructor or Library Faculty (with 0.5 FTE of academic appointment) are members of the bargaining unit. Excludes all other employees of OIT, including (but not limited to) visiting faculty, research faculty and associates, and faculty in administrative positions without a reasonable expectation of teaching. Proposal Package on 9/17/20
Release Time Proposal on 9/17/20 Proposal on 5/18/20
Retrenchment Proposal on 3/12/20 Proposal on 7/28/20
Sabbatical Leave Proposal on 10/8/20 Proposal on 10/22/20
Severability Tentative Agreement on 4/6/20
Shared Governance Proposal on 10/22/20 No proposal
Statutory Compliance No proposal Proposal on 12/5/19
Successor Agreement No proposal Proposal on 7/28/20
Tenure and Promotion (TTF) Proposal Package on 9/24/20 No proposal
Term of Agreement No proposal Proposal on 7/28/20
Totality of Agreement Tentative Agreement on 9/17/20
Working Conditions Proposal on 8/11/20 Proposal on 7/15/20
Workload and Overload Compensation Proposal on 10/22/20 Proposal on 7/29/20
 

Welcome back! Updates and general meeting (1/12/2021 at 2 pm) (Originally emailed to faculty on 1/6/21)

Welcome back, colleagues! I’m writing today with some quick updates from your faculty union as we start winter term.

First, we are having another general meeting on Tuesday, 1/12/2021, from 2 – 3 pm, over Zoom. Please come for updates and action items. The meeting link will be forthcoming.

Second, over the break, the negotiating teams continued to exchange proposals and communication; our team has tried to find common ground with the administration, but we are still far apart on major issues, particularly with respect to compensation and benefits. The teams are meeting this Thursday, 1/7/2021, for the first time since the end of fall term. At next week’s general meeting, we hope to have additional bargaining updates.

Lastly, we recently learned that, on Christmas Eve, Oregon Tech’s administration filed a request for judicial review (effectively, an appeal) of last term’s unanimous decision from the Oregon Employment Relations Board that Oregon Tech committed unfair labor practices against us. We find this appeal to be an egregious waste of time and money, especially at a time when the university has furloughed staff and frozen faculty hiring.

Despite whatever challenges we face as a faculty this term, please know that your faculty union is working on your behalf and welcomes your input, support, and involvement. Again, please plan to attend our general meeting next Tuesday, 1/12/2021, at 2 pm. In the meantime, have a great first week of classes!

In solidarity,

Dr. Kari Lundgren, OT-AAUP Secretary
On behalf of the OT-AAUP Executive Committee

Dr. Sean St. Clair, President
Dr. Cristina Negoita, Vice President
Dr. Kari Lundgren, Secretary
Prof. Terri Torres, Treasurer
Prof. Andria Fultz, Portland-Metro At-Large Representative
Dr. Kyle Chapman, Klamath Falls At-Large Representative
Dr. Mark Clark, Immediate Past President

Bargaining update; General meeting 1/12/2021 (Originally emailed to faculty on 12/14/20)

Dear colleagues,

As an unforgettable fall term wraps up, we’re writing with a few key union updates for you.

First, our next general meeting will be 1/12/2021 at 2 pm (Tuesday of Week 2). This meeting will serve as a follow-up to our meeting of 12/4/2020 and will cover updates to bargaining and what next steps will be necessary to win a strong contract. Please plan to attend this meeting if you can. Zoom information will be forthcoming in the new year.

Second, the negotiating teams met on 12/10/2020 and came to Tentative Agreement (TA) on Leaves, which is heartening. Less heartening was the fact that Oregon Tech Admin rejected our Benefits proposal, wherein we propose maintaining the status quo (95/5 split for PEBB contributions), as well as our Donated Leave proposal, as both of these proposals address issues related to health insurance and sick leaves, issues especially relevant during a pandemic.

Oregon Tech Admin did finally counter on Compensation and Workload (linked here), as well as on Outside Activities and Professional Development. Their proposals continue to ignore key issues to our members –e.g., no COLA, no definition of workload units, no post-tenure review raises, no geographic stipends–but do show a small amount of engagement in the process. Our team will, naturally, respond to these articles. We encourage you to read carefully through their proposals on Compensation and Workload.

As of now, the teams are scheduled to meet weekly throughout January.

Your bargaining team has now been in negotiations for over a year, and, while we have reached a few tentative agreements (Leaves, Grievances, Arbitration,etc), we remain far apart on the issues that are top priorities for faculty (Workload, Compensation, etc.). We hope to reach an agreement on our contract in the winter term, but winning a contract that ensures our contributions to the university are recognized will take all of us engaging in the process and supporting our bargaining team.

We wish you peace, joy, and solidarity throughout the holiday season and the new year!

Kari Lundgren, OTAAUP Secretary
On behalf of the OTAAUP Executive Committee

Dr. Sean St. Clair, President
Dr. Cristina Negoita, Vice President
Dr. Kari Lundgren, Secretary
Prof. Terri Torres, Treasurer
Prof. Andria Fultz, Portland-Metro At-Large Representative
Dr. Kyle Chapman, Klamath Falls At-Large Representative
Dr. Mark Clark, Immediate Past President

Day 3 of Mediation: Bargaining Update (Originally emailed to faculty on 11/13/20)

Colleagues,

Yesterday was the third day of mediation for our collective bargaining process, so we’re writing with a quick update. (Reminder: Bargaining updates from OTAAUP will always come from unite@oregontechaaup.org; emails from negoitiations@oit.edu are from the administration’s bargaining team.)

Unlike in past bargaining sessions, proposals are considered confidential during the mediation process, but we can share with you the following basic information about the day’s progress.

Parties exchanged the following articles:

  • Leaves
  • Discipline
  • Arbitration (ready to TA)
  • Fringe Benefits
  • Donations for Hardship Leave

We will continue the mediation process again next Thursday. Thank you for your continued support.

In solidarity,
Your OTAAUP Bargaining Team

Dr. Cristina Negoita, Chief Negotiator
Dr. David Johnston
Prof. Karen Kunz
Prof. Joseph Reid
Dr. Matthew Search
Prof. Stephen Schulz
Prof. Terri Torres

A win for faculty! ULP decision unanimously in our favor (Originally emailed to faculty on 10/29/20)

Colleagues,

We’re writing today to share with you good news: This morning, we received notice that the Oregon Employment Relations Board (ERB) ruled unanimously in our favor regarding the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaint we made this summer.

Per the official ERB order, “The Board found that Oregon Institute of Technology committed unfair labor practices in violation of ORS 243.672(1)(e) . . . . The Board also concluded that Oregon Tech violated the duty to bargain when it unilaterally eliminated stipends and release time.”

Here is the ERB’s full ruling.

In other words, we won!

Despite the administration’s use of thousands of dollars in an attempt to defend their actions, we have been vindicated.

As part of this decision, everyone who was impacted by the illegal change to the Stipend/Release model will be made “whole” by the university, with interest. Please let us know at unite@oregontechaaup.org if you were adversely affected by the university’s actions so that we can keep track of whether the university is fulfilling their legal obligation.

Additionally, as a result of this decision, these issues will return to their rightful place at the bargaining table, where faculty will continue to have a strong voice.

Thanks to our faculty’s efforts through the union, we were able to achieve this victory. Thanks for your continued support!

In solidarity,

Your OTAAUP Executive Committee
Dr. Sean St. Clair, President
Dr. Cristina Negoita, Vice President
Dr. Kari Lundgren, Secretary
Prof. Terri Torres, Treasurer
Prof. Andria Fultz, Portland-Metro At-Large Representative
Dr. Kyle Chapman, Klamath Falls At-Large Representative
Dr. Mark Clark, Immediate Past President

Bargaining Update: Day 1 of Mediation (Originally emailed to faculty on 10/29/20)

Colleagues,

Today was the first day of mediation for our bargaining process, so we’re writing with a quick update. (Reminder: Bargaining updates from OTAAUP will always come from unite@oregontechaaup.org; emails from negoitiations@oit.edu are from the administration’s bargaining team.)

Your OTAAUP bargaining team met with both the administration’s team and a state mediator from 9:00 am – 4:30 pm today.

Unlike in past bargaining sessions, proposals are considered confidential during the mediation process, but we can share with you the following basic information about the day’s progress.

Parties exchanged the following articles:

  • Academic Freedom
  • Leaves
  • Hardship Leaves (Donated Leaves)
  • Recognition
  • Arbitration
  • Fringe Benefits
  • Working Conditions

No tentative agreements (TAs) were reached, though some more or less productive discussion occurred on a variety of subjects.

We will continue this process again next Thursday. Thank you for your continued support.

In solidarity,
Your OTAAUP Bargaining Team

Dr. Cristina Negoita, Chief Negotiator
Dr. David Johnston
Prof. Karen Kunz
Prof. Joseph Reid
Dr. Matthew Search
Prof. Stephen Schulz
Prof. Terri Torres

September 24 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Thursday, September 24, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their second bargaining session of the Fall term. OT-AAUP presented two proposal packages, one on Progressive Discipline, Grievances, Arbitration, and Position Descriptions, and a second on Academic Classification & Rank, Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure, and Faculty Compensation. The Oregon Tech team did not present any proposals.

Proposal Package #1
First, the Association presented their proposal package which contained Progressive Discipline, Grievances, Arbitration, and Position Descriptions. In regards to Progressive Discipline, Grievances, and Arbitration, the Association explained that they had incorporated some of the language from the Administration’s previous proposals, and that the Association thought the parties were getting close to agreement on those articles. In regards to Position Descriptions, the Association, once again, explained that it was not the intention of OT-AAUP to dictate what was in Position Descriptions, but merely to require that each faculty member be given a position description that clearly outlines the faculty member’s duties and responsibilities, and clearly indicates how they will be evaluated. The Oregon Tech team only had clarifying questions and there was not much discussion around these articles before the parties went into caucus.

After caucus, the Administration’s team seemed to express some disappointment in the first package presented by the Association. The Administration’s team stated that they did not feel that the parties were moving closer to agreement on the proposals contained in the Association’s first package. The Oregon Tech team then began to point out some of the discrepancies between the two parties’ proposal on Grievances, while ignoring the many parts that they had come to agreement on. Additionally, the Oregon Tech team seemed to imply that the Association had added parts to its Compensation article that were not previously there. In response, the Association stated that they understood there were still some differences, but they weren’t going to necessarily concede certain points just to reach agreement.

Proposal Package #2
Lastly, OT-AAUP presented its second proposal package, which contained proposals on Academic Classification & Rank, Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure, and Faculty Compensation. First, the Association team explained that their Academic Classification & Rank proposal was largely unchanged from their previous position. Second, the Association explained that the new Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure proposal, if the University were to accept the package, would replace the Association’s previous proposals on Annual Evaluation of Faculty, Promotion & Tenure for Tenure-Track Faculty, and Promotion for Non-Tenure Track Faculty. (For the details of this proposal, see any of the proposals mentioned above dated 09/24./20 in the Google Sheets document.) Finally, the Association briefly reviewed their Compensation counter, and explained that the only addition to the proposal were the salary tables, which hadn’t been provided previously since the parties had not agreed on which data sets to use in creating the table. (Note, the parties did not agree on which data set to use, rather, the Association used national averages to compute the salary tables.)

Note: The Oregon Tech team formally rejected the Associations first proposal package containing Progressive Discipline, Grievances, Arbitration, and Position Descriptions on September 24. As of the writing of this summary, Oregon Tech has neither accepted nor rejected OT-AAUP’s second proposal package on Academic Classification & Rank, Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure, and Compensation.

September 17, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Thursday, September 17, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their first bargaining session of the Fall term. The OT-AAUP team put forth counter proposals on Progressive Discipline, Notices of Appointment, and Reasonable (Release) Time. The Oregon Tech team presented two proposal packages; one on Recognition, Academic Classification & Rank, Notices of Appointment, and Position Descriptions, and another on Progressive Discipline, Grievances, and Arbitration. Additionally, the parties TAed Totality of Agreement, and the Oregon Tech team formally withdrew their Statutory Compliance Article.

Progressive Discipline
First, the OT-AAUP negotiating team presented their counter proposal on Progressive Discipline. The parties engaged in some discussion over the Association’s requirement that any employee’s response to a disciplinary action be included in the employee’s personnel file. At first, it seemed that the Oregon Tech team was taking this to mean that the Association wanted to forego the Grievance process or that Association was wanting two parallel processes available to bargaining unit members to challenge a disciplinary action. However, when the OT-AAUP team explained that this was only so that there would be a record of any response to the disciplinary action, the Oregon Tech team agreed that would be fine, and commented that they like written records.

Notices of Appointment
Next, the Association team presented their counter proposal on Notices of Appointment. The team pointed out that they did include a date for when all Notices of Appointment should be sent, and the administration renewed their concern that it could be problematic for them to guarantee that all Notices of Appointment would be sent by such a date. Then the Administration’s team asked if the language concerning when a non-tenure track faculty member should be notified that their position would not be renewed, was to address current problems or to prevent future problems. The Association responded that it was meant to prevent future problems. The Oregon Tech team then stated that they had no further questions.

Reasonable (Release) Time
Lastly, the OT-AAUP team presented their counter proposal on Reasonable (Release) Time for  faculty members engaged in Association activities. The Association conceded that, since they are a new organization, it is difficult to know how much time would be needed to deal with Association business. However, the OT-AAUP team explained that their estimates were based on information from other Faculty Unions at several different Oregon Universities. The Oregon Tech team took issue with these estimates and asked to see the details of the analysis. The Association also provided a costing estimate for the reasonable time, which was much lower than the cost analysis done by the Administration on May 18, 2020. Additionally, the Association noted that they were no longer asking for the Administration to count service to OT-AAUP as University service, but rather as professional service, since AAUP is a professional organization. In response, the Oregon Tech team continued to assert that they were not interested in that provision.

Proposal Package #1
After a brief caucus, the Oregon Tech team presented their first proposal package, which contained a counter on Recognition, Academic Rank & Classification, Notices of Appointment, and Position Descriptions. The Administration team explained that, although they were open to changes in language in any of the proposals, the package needed to be accepted or rejected in its entirety. They explained that, if the Association chose to reject the package, Oregon Tech’s position on each of the proposals contained in the package would revert to its previous position, before September 17. First, the parties reviewed the Administration’s new Recognition Proposal, which was still very different from recognition language issued by the Oregon Employment Relation Board. The Association’s team brought this point up and expressed that the language proposed by Oregon Tech could lead to confusion or the possible exclusion of faculty who should be covered by the CBA. Next, the parties discussed the Notices of Appointment portion of the package. The Administration’s team pointed out that they had added classification to the Notice of Appointment, and proposed a date of August 15, for when all Notices of Appointment would be sent to faculty. In addition, the Oregon Tech team stated that if things went smoothly and they found that they were able to get the Notices of Appointment out sooner, they would be willing to amend the language to an earlier date. The last part of Oregon Tech’s first package, Position Descriptions, was not a counter proposal in the usual sense; but rather a condition that, in order to accept the package, the Association would need to drop its Position Description proposal.

Proposal Package #2
Lastly, the Administration negotiating team presented their second proposal package, which included counter proposals on Progressive Discipline, Grievances, and Arbitration. The parties first discussed Oregon Tech’s counter on Progressive Discipline. The Oregon Tech team explained that the main changes to their proposal were an addition of behaviors that could result in disciplinary action. When the Association’s team asked why they felt it was necessary to include behaviors that would obviously result in disciplinary action, they responded that they added those behaviors for clarity. The Administration’s team also explained that they took language from the Association’s Progressive Discipline proposal concerning the different types of disciplinary actions. Next and last, the parties discussed the Administration’s proposals on Grievances and Arbitration. The Oregon Tech team explained that the main changes in the Grievance article were around who had standing to bring a grievance or when a grievance could be brought and adopting but modifying the informal procedure from the Association’s proposal. In regards to the brining of grievances, the grievant would need to demonstrate that they were “harmed” by the alleged infraction, and that only they could bring the grievance, not another party. In regards to Arbitration, the Oregon Tech team explained that they had incorporated some of the Association’s language around mediation, and that they included some timelines to allow one party to respond to the other party’s motion to dismiss. The OT-AAUP team said they would review these proposals in caucus.

Note: OT-AAUP formally rejected Oregon Tech’s September 17 proposal packages on September 18.

August 26, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met on Wednesday, August 26, to continue the fifth bargaining round of the summer. OT-AAUP presented counter proposals on Leaves and Sabbaticals. The Oregon Tech team did not have any articles to present.

Leaves
OT-AAUP first presented their counter on Leaves, and summarized the changes from their previous proposal. There was some discussion around concerns that the Administration’s team had regarding some of the language in the proposal and that it might contradict or come in conflict with statutory language. The Association suggested that the Oregon Tech team could address the issue in their next counter, and the parties agreed to discuss the matter, separately, in caucus.

Sabbaticals
Next, the Association presented their counter proposal on Sabbaticals. The Association’s team continued to assert their position that if the Administration is serious about faculty members taking sabbaticals, there would need to be an increase in sabbatical pay, to which the Administration had no response at the time. Lastly, the parties engaged in some discussion over whether or not the parties were actually in agreement in certain sections of the proposal. The OT-AAUP team believed that the parties were in agreement over the condition that faculty members would need to return to Oregon Tech and prepare a report on their sabbatical; and, that if the faculty member did not return, they would have to reimburse their salary and OPE to Oregon Tech. However, the Administration’s team felt that since the language was not identical, there was no agreement. Both parties agreed to consider the other parties’ position in caucus.

August 25, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Tuesday, August 11, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their fifth bargaining session of the Summer. Joining OT-AAUP’s Negotiating Team was Associate Professor of Mathematics Joseph Reid and Associate Professor of Business Management Sharon Beaudry. The OT-AAUP team did not have any proposals to present. The Oregon Tech team presented their proposals on Compensation and Benefits.

Compensation
First, the Oregon Tech team presented their Compensation Proposal. Needless to say, the OT-AAUP team was disappointed and disheartened by the Administration’s proposal, though not necessarily surprised, given the “quality” of some of the Administration’s prior proposals. The Association team then pressed the Oregon Tech Team as to why they had chosen a purely merit based compensation model, if they were aware of the many studies done that show merit based compensation models often do not work, and if they had any examples or studies of institutions where merit based compensation was successful. In response, the Administration’s team asked the Association’s team to prepare a list of these and other questions, and that the Oregon Tech team would attempt to present answers to the questions at the September 17 negotiating session. However, the Oregon Tech team did respond to the Associations question about the proposal not to give faculty any raises until 2022. The Administration’s team seemed to indicate that since faculty were not asked to “share” in the budget reductions due to COVID-19, it was necessary to put off raises until 2022. They did not address the fact that faculty were NOT given a COLA in 2020, although that was part of the current compensation policy.

Benefits
Next, the Oregon Tech team presented their Benefits Proposal. Once again, the OT-AAUP team was extremely disappointed by this Proposal. The Association team asked the Oregon Tech team to explain their intentions driving this proposal and they explained that it was the intention of the proposal to attempt to bring health care costs in Oregon “in line” with the rest of the country. They seemed to indicate that the current 95/5 cost split was untenable and could not be sustained going forward. Additionally, Oregon Tech wanted the freedom to choose (with some unspecified and non-binding form of community input) different health insurance from those set by Oregon State PEBB. In conclusion, the Association team stated that they felt this would be a hard sell for their members, especially in light of the Administration’s Compensation Proposal.

For more information about OT-AAUP’s response to Oregon Tech’s Compensation and Benefits Proposals, please see the OT-AAUP website.

August 12, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met on Wednesday, August 12, to continue the fourth bargaining round of the summer. OT-AAUP presented a counter proposal on Position Descriptions, and the Oregon Tech team presented a counter-proposal on Notices of Appointment.

Notices of Appointment
The Oregon Tech team went first and presented their counter proposal on Notices of Appointment. They agreed to incorporate the language from OT-AAUP’s previous proposal on Notices of Appointment, which would inform bargaining unit members that their position was subject to a CBA and would include a link to the CBA. Note, in Oregon, when a position is covered by a CBA an employer is legally obligated to inform an employee. However, Oregon Tech would still not commit to a timeline for when these Notices of Appointment would be sent out to faculty. Additionally, when asked why they did not want to include the bargaining unit member’s department and direct supervisor, the Administration’s response was that those might change during the year, and they did not want to have to reissue a new Notice of Appointment. Furthermore, when the Association asked why they did not want to include FTE on the Notices of Appointment, even though that is currently included, the Oregon Tech team responded that they felt their proposal included sufficient information and they suggested that the parties move on to considering other matters.

Position Descriptions
Next, OT-AAUP presented their renewed proposal on Position Descriptions. The Association negotiating team stressed that it was not their intention to tell the Administration what should be in an individual faculty member’s Position Description. Rather, it was the intent of OT-AAUP, through this article, to make sure that Position Descriptions would be provided to all bargaining unit members, and that said Position Descriptions would clearly state the duties and expectations required of each faculty member, as well as the criteria under which the faculty member would be evaluated. The Association explained that their interest in having this article was based on numerous examples over many years where faculty were, either, not judged for something they were asked to do by a senior administrator, or judged for something they were never told they had to do. When pressed for comments about this proposal, the Administration stated that they would need to caucus and discuss the article amongst themselves before they could give comments to the OT-AAUP team.

Further Discussion
Then, the OT-AAUP team asked if the Oregon Tech team would be willing to further comment on the parts of the Association’s Annual Evaluation of Faculty proposal that they felt were permissive and which parts they felt were mandatory. The Administration team stated that they were not obligated to explain the differences. However, they would stick to their original assessment that the entire article was permissive, but that there were certain aspects such as procedures and timelines that were mandatory, and the Administration was open to discussing a proposal containing only those mandatory elements.

Lastly, there was some discussion about when the Association could expect Oregon Tech’s Compensation Proposal, and the Oregon Tech team stated that it would be ready for the August 25th session.