June 23rd, 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, June 23, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their first bargaining session of the Summer. Representing OT-AAUP was chief negotiator Cristina Negoita, Professor of Mathematics; Stephen Schultz, Professor of Medical Imaging; Matt Search, Associate Professor of Communication; Karen Kunz, Information Systems Librarian; David Johnston, Instructor of Natural Science; and, joining the team as a permanent alternate, Kevin Pintong, Associate Professor of CSET. Representing Oregon Tech was chief negotiator Brian Caufield; Maureen De Armond, Associate VP of Human Resources; Abdy Afjeh, Associate Provost of Research and Academic Affairs; Tom Keyser, Dean of ETM; Dan Peterson, Dean of HAS; Brian Moravec, Associate Dean of ETM; and Stephanie Pope, Assistant VP for Budget and Resource Planning.

For this session, OT-AAUP brought three proposals: Academic Freedom, Professional Development, and Association Rights.

The Oregon Tech team brought a proposal on Arbitration.

Arbitration
The teams began by discussing Oregon Tech’s counter-proposal on the Arbitration article. The Oregon Tech team stated that they were not interested in adopting the language proposed by OT-AAUP, which would require one of the parties to specifically state they were not interested in mediation before moving forward with the selection of an Arbitrator. The Oregon Tech team felt that it would be a misuse of the Oregon Employment Relation Board’s time if the matter were submitted for mediation, only to be withdrawn several days later when one of the Parties declared they were not interested in mediation. The OT-AAUP team explained that it was not the intention to have the matter automatically submitted for mediation, rather, to encourage mediation. The OT-AAUP team stated they would attempt to clarify the language in their next counter proposal. The Oregon Tech team agreed to remove the language around limiting the list of Arbitrators to Oregon, California, or Washington. However, they did not want to adopt the OT-AAUP’s language about allowing either Party to ask for a new list of Arbitrator’s if the original choice cannot hold a hearing within 90 days. The team explained that it is very common for hearings to be scheduled more than 90 days out, and they were concerned that this provision could be used as an excuse if one of the parties did not like the selected Arbitrator. Likewise, the Oregon Tech team did not adopt OT-AAUP’s language around needing the hearing to be conducted within 45 days or a new Arbitrator would need to be chosen. They felt, specifically in the case where both Parties are pleased with the choice of Arbitrator, it would not be in either Parties’ interest to have to choose a different Arbitrator. The OT-AAUP team stated they would discuss this in caucus and counter in their next proposal. Next, the Oregon Tech team stated they were not interested in adopting OT-AAUP’s language about requiring both Parties to jointly submit a statement to the Arbitrator, within 10 days of the hearing, that stated what issues were to be addressed by the Arbitration. They were concerned that this might unfairly burden the Association, since their attorney(s) may not be ready 10 days before the hearing. Additionally, they were concerned that, in a highly contested case, it might be difficult or impossible for the parties to agree on the core issues. OT-AAUP said they would take this argument into consideration and discuss the issue in caucus. The Oregon Tech team then explained that they felt it was advantageous to move the section on Arbitrability prior to the sections on the conduct of the hearing, arguing that it would be in both Parties’ best interest to have this resolved earlier, in order to reduce costs. Although not included in their proposal, the Parties did discuss how costs should be covered if the Arbitrator were to declare that the issues presented were not open to arbitration. The Parties seemed to be in agreement that, in this case, the cost of the Arbitrator would be split by the Parties. Lastly, the Oregon Tech team stated they were not interested in adopting the language in OT-AAUP’s proposal which would require any fees charged by the Arbitrator to be split by the Parties. They argued that it was fairer to have the withdrawing Party pay the fees, as this could serve to discourage the Parties pursuing arbitration for frivolous issues. The OT-AAUP team said they would review this in caucus and address the issue in their next proposal.

Professional Development
Next, OT-AAUP presented their initial proposal on Professional Development. After going through the article, the Oregon Tech team did not have any substantive questions, but they did ask if the Association had done a costing analysis of the proposal. The Association team responded that they had not done a costing analysis, because they were waiting on data from Oregon Tech that showed the current expenditure on professional development.

Academic Freedom
Next, the OT-AAUP team presented their counter proposal on Academic Freedom. The Association team explained that they were not interested in adopting Oregon Tech’s language that stated faculty members should treat others fairly and with respect. It was explained that the Association is not opposed to this, rather, it is assumed that ALL interactions should be fair and respectful from all sides, and it seemed to be putting an undue burden on bargaining unit members to ensure fairness and respect. Additionally, it was voiced that, since fairness and respect are very vague ideas, there was concern that this language could be used to censure a bargaining unit member merely because another individual felt they had been treated unfairly or with disrespect. The Oregon Tech team did not have any questions or comments about this item. The Oregon Tech team felt that the Association’s language around requiring the Faculty Senate to approve agreements between Oregon Tech and outside entities that have a curricular impact was outside the scope of a collective bargaining agreement. OT-AAUP responded that they look forward to Oregon Tech’s counter proposal on this issue.

Association Rights
Lastly, the OT-AAUP team presented their first counter to Oregon Tech’s counter to the Association Rights article. Of major discussion was the Associations contention that, since groups internal to Oregon Tech do not, currently, pay a fee for the use of University spaces, Oregon Tech should NOT charge the Association to use those same facilities. The Oregon tech team argued that, since, legally, the Association is a third-party, separate from the University, they should be charged a fee, in accordance with the current practice of charging outside groups a fee to use Oregon Tech facilities. The Association countered that, while they may be a third-party legally, they were conducting business and dealing with issues directly related to the University and its employee’s, namely, the faculty. As such, they were much more like an internal group, than a random external group that had no affiliation with Oregon Tech. Additionally, the Association team pointed out that at several of the other state universities in Oregon, the Faculty Unions are recognized as internal faculty groups and are not charged for using the University’s facilities. There was no resolution of this matter, but the Oregon Tech team stated they would address the matter in their caucus and in their next counter proposal. The last major issue discussed was the addressing of Oregon Tech’s desire to have a list of duties for each member of OT-AAUP’s executive committee, and the estimated time necessary to accomplish said duties. The OT-AAUP team was not opposed to providing a general list of union duties, but were opposed to providing such a specific list, particularly since, as a new group, it is not entirely certain what each member’s duties would be, and how much time would be required to discharge said duties. The Oregon Tech team countered that they were requesting the information in order to be in compliance with the statute regarding public employee unions, which states that Employers must provide “reasonable time” for the officers of the Union to discharge their duties. The Association felt that would be better covered in the Release Time article, but the Oregon Tech team asserted that these were separate issues. The teams agreed to discuss the issue further in caucus. There was some minor discussion surrounding timelines for information and the parties came to agreement on said timelines. The Oregon Tech team stated they would further discuss the Association’s proposal in caucus.

June 8th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

For this session, OT-AAUP brought three proposals: Grievances, Arbitration, and Compensation.

The Oregon Tech team brought three proposals also: Donated Leave Bank, Leaves, and Fringe Benefits.

Donated Leave Bank
The session began with a discussion of the Donated Leave Bank article. The OT team clarified that this article was created by synthesizing resources from SOU and SEIU, with a few exceptions. As the article specifies that applications are limited to temporary hardship (understood as medical issues distinct from sick leave), the OT-AAUP team pointed out that the leave bank would then not be available to victims of domestic abuse.

Leaves
The article on Leaves was discussed next. To the article’s statement that faculty on sabbatical do not accrue or use sick leave, the OT-AAUP argued that faculty on sabbatical are still employees of the university. The OT team disagreed. There was also discussion about if and when leave applies during inclement weather days. OT argued that campus closure announcements are made before the beginning of work (by 6am); OT-AAUP countered that this has rarely been the case in the past. OT-AAUP argued that faculty should not be responsible for work after campus closure due to weather, as is true for SEIU employees.

Fringe Benefits
The article on Fringe Benefits was discussed third. The OT team argued that this does not need to be a separate article, and should be combined with Health and Welfare, or Working Conditions. OT stated that the university has sole discretion when it comes to staff fee policies, and could even withdraw from negotiating them altogether. OT-AAUP asked for more clarity in the article language about what fees the university will and won’t cover. OT refused to bargain over parking fees on the Klamath Falls campus.

Grievances
Next up was the article on Grievances. There was a brief discussion about clarifying the language around deadlines in this article. In particular, can the grievance process be fairly carried out during periods when a faculty member is off-contract? The OT-AAUP team says potentially not, while the OT team says yes, and if a faculty member is off-contract in the midst of the process they have a responsibility to check in regularly regarding the status of that grievance. The OT team agreed to discuss further in caucus.

Arbitration
Arbitration was discussed next. There was some discussion regarding how arbitrators are chosen, and how the list of potential arbitrators is generated. The OT team pointed out that, as written, the article could be seen to suggest that the decision over whether or not something can be arbitrated is made late in the process, potentially wasting time and energy if preparation for arbitration begins, only to then discover later that a given issue cannot be arbitrated. The OT-AAUP team agreed to reconsider this wording, then there was a break for lunch/caucus.

Compensation
After the break Compensation was discussed. There was some initial discussion regarding the usefulness of the comparator data that OT-AAUP was using. The OT team argued that the data OT-AAUP was using did not represent financial “reality”; the OT-AAUP team countered that they are using actual yearly financial data from the university to inform their work. The OT team agreed to discuss this article before the next meeting.

Conclusion
As a final comment, the OT team stated that they will be sending out information this week pertaining to an early retirement incentive program, in hopes of encouraging some employees to voluntarily leave the university during this time of budget cuts.

June 1st, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

For this session, the OT-AAUP team proposed two articles: Personnel Files and Workload and Overload Compensation.

The Oregon Tech team proposed one article: Sabbaticals.

Sabbaticals
The session began with discussion of the Sabbaticals proposal. There was discussion as to why the article, as proposed, excluded NTT faculty from taking sabbaticals. The OT team said that faculty who don’t have a research emphasis (like NTT faculty) don’t need to take sabbaticals. OT also argued that approval for sabbaticals should be at the sole discretion of the Provost. Next, OT asked the union how salary would be calculated if someone was approved for sabbatical, but then changed the timeline. The OT-AAUP team pointed out that cutting the already low rate that faculty are paid for sabbatical makes them less likely to apply for the “full,” three-term sabbatical. After discussion of examples, the OT team suggested that they would be willing to reconsider the pay rate put forth in the article. OT’s version of this article says that faculty cannot use a sabbatical to finish a degree. Both sides discussed this; OT-AAUP asked why this wasn’t allowed, and OT explained that finishing a degree was “personal leave” that does not benefit OIT. The OT-AAUP team disagreed, arguing that there is already a precedent for faculty using sabbatical time to finish degrees here. OT used the same argument to deny that sabbaticals can be used to take one-year visiting positions. Finally, the OT-AAUP team argued again that incentivizing our faculty to take a sabbatical in order to get their terminal degree would be to the university’s benefit.

Personnel File
There was very brief discussion about the Personnel File article, and then the OT team decided to discuss it in caucus.

Workload and Overload Compensation
There was a slightly longer discussion of the Workload article. This came after discussions of the article’s content and supporting information from members of the OT-AAUP team. OT-AAUP had not generated a costing document for their proposal yet; the OT team said they planned to do this. The OT-AAUP team emphasized during discussion that they want to find a way to meaningfully quantify a minimum required amount of non-instructional workload.

Next Session
The next negotiation session was held on June 8th, from 10am until 2pm. Notes from this session will be posted shortly.

May 18th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

For this session, the OT-AAUP team proposed two articles: No Strike/No Lockout and Promotion and Tenure for NTTF. The team also introduced a letter expressing their concern over the Oregon Tech team’s recent refusal to bargain particular articles.

The Oregon Tech team proposed three articles: Notices of Appointment, Release Time (this was a costing document related to the Release Time article, not a counter), and Dues Deduction.

The OT team put forward the Notices of Appointment article first. They suggested moving some of the language be moved into another article (e.g., Working Conditions). They do not intend to negotiate the majority of the article. The OT-AAUP team clarified that they saw part of the value of this article being that it would establish a concrete timeline for appointment, which has been inconsistent in the past. The practices of other universities were discussed, and OT-AAUP reiterated that we need a consistent timeline for notices of appointment in the future. The OT-AAUP team also asked why the language requiring salary information in the notices had been removed. The OT team argued that this was “duplicate information” and wasn’t necessary. The OT-AAUP team decided to discuss the article further in caucus.

The next item discussed was a costing document related to the Release Time article. The OT team discussed the costing document, and there was a very brief discussion.

Next up was No Strike/No Lockout. There was more discussion as to whether picketing done outside of scheduled work should be considered an “interruption of work” or not. No progress was made in the discussion.

Then, the OT-AAUP team introduced their article on Promotion and Tenure for NTT Faculty. The team began by pointing out that the vast majority of the wording in this article is based in existing policy. Then, they went over the few changes that were made beyond that wording. The OT team agreed to discuss in caucus.

After a recess, Dues Deduction was discussed. The OT team suggested that this article be combined with Association Rights. They also suggested a few other, minor changes, which the OT-AAUP team agreed to discuss in caucus.

Finally, the teams discussed the letter drafted by the OT-AAUP team. The OT team argued that there was no legal precedent that requires them to negotiate on these particular issues, and that the OT-AAUP team’s letter does not change their position. The OT-AAUP team asked the OT team why, in other cases, universities have CBAs that include these articles: the OT team had no answer for them.

The next negotiation session was held on June 1st, from 10am until 2pm. Notes from this session will be posted shortly.

 

Presentation by Howard Bunsis (Ex Officio Chair of the AAUP CBC) on OIT Finances

On May 14, 2020, Dr. Howard Bunsis (Eastern Michigan Univeristy) delivered a presentation over Zoom to OT-AAUP members. The meeting was recorded and is posted below.

Additionally, the slides from Dr. Bunsis’ presentation can be found at this link. If you are looking for a particular point in the conversation, the video is broken into chapters on YouTube at this link.

Finally, the reserve spending resolution (from their Finance and Administration Committee and approved by their board) at Portland State mentioned towards the end of the video can be found at this link.

May 11th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

For this session, the OT-AAUP team proposed five articles: Recognition, Working Conditions, Benefits, Fringe Benefits, and Leaves.

The Oregon Tech team proposed four articles: No Strike/No Lockout, Management Rights, Disciplinary Procedures, and Association Rights.

OT-AAUP presented the Recognition article first. The Oregon Tech team commented that the definition provided was confusing and would lead to litigation. They suggested moving to the next article immediately.

Working Conditions was up next. During the “Health and Safety” section of the article, the Oregon Tech team expressed concern that certain wording conflicted with what had already been established in the Management Rights article, and that this would negate those portions of that article.

OT-AAUP presented the Benefits article next. There were no questions asked or concerns expressed by the Oregon Tech team.

The Oregon Tech team then presented some of their articles. No Strike/No Lockout was presented first. They contested the OT-AAUP team’s desire to allow picketing. OT-AAUP agreed to allow picketing only outside of work hours. Oregon Tech denied this compromise.

Next up was Management Rights. Oregon Tech argued that the version of the article OT-AAUP had last presented wasn’t clear enough in its wording. A lack of clarity could effect both parties’ ability to bargain over specific rights in the future.

Oregon Tech presented Disciplinary Procedures next. There was some discussion over changes in Section 2, and exactly what external laws and/or guidelines supersede the CBA and how those considerations should be addressed in the article. The OT-AAUP team had a question about a change made in Section 5, which eliminated a proposed two-year limit to make disciplinary review holistic, covering instead the member in question’s entire tenure at the university. The Oregon Tech team did not want to place a limit on how far back review might go, and the OT-AAUP team argued that clarity in the process (i.e., specifying how far back a review could go) was important. After this, the parties decided to go to caucus.

After the caucus, the teams discussed the Association Rights article first. Oregon Tech began by clarifying that later in the process, they would want to combine Association Rights, dues, deduction, and release time into one article. Oregon Tech summarized the article, and OT-AAUP asked a few clarifying questions. Once again, Oregon Tech argued that service to the union should not count as service for the purposes of performance evaluation. OT-AAUP countered that service to the union is also in service to the wider goal of having a more reputable and functional university. OT-AAUP also requested that wording about the annual budget as provided by the Board of Trustees be clarified: in the team’s eyes, this budget is not detailed, and needs to be much more so to be useful.

There was brief discussion of OT-AAUP’s Fringe Benefits article. OT-AAUP clarified that professional development funds could not be used for professional memberships, as some memberships are requirements, not optional. The Oregon Tech team clarified that staff fee benefits are changeable; the OT-AAUP team argued that information on what applies is available through HR’s website at any given time.

Last up was OT-AAUP’s Leaves article. Oregon Tech had no particular objections or concerns, but wanted to take one last look at the article.

The next negotiation session will be on May 18th, from 10am until 2pm. If you wish to join, a Zoom link is available on the OT-AAUP website’s calendar page.

Site Updated Through 4/27!

Hi all, this is Ben, from the OT-AAUP Communications Committee. Our group fell a bit behind on keeping the site updated early on in the COVID-19 outbreak, but rest assured that our negotiation team and OT-AAUP group did not stop working toward our first CBA in that time.

I’ve recently updated the site with bargaining session summaries from the sessions held on 3/13, 4/6, 4/13, 4/20 and 4/27. You can find those on the bargaining updates page.

I’ve also updated all the articles proposed during those sessions on our spreadsheet, which is here.

If you’re able to attend any of our upcoming negotiation sessions on 5/11, 5/18, 6/1, and 6/8, it would be much appreciated, and there’s information on those sessions (including Zoom links) on our calendar page.

Lastly, we have a new logo! It’s been added to the homepage on our site, and I’m sure you’ll be seeing it around elsewhere virtually (and later on) on our campuses:

As always, use the contact form to let us know of your questions or concerns.

Keep safe and healthy out there!

April 27th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

 For this session, OT-AAUP proposed four articles: Notices of Appointment, Management Rights, Progressive Discipline, and Association Dues.

The Oregon Tech team proposed three articles: Notices and Communication, Recognition, and Academic Freedom.

Notices and Communication was discussed first. The Oregon Tech team summarized some minor changes, and the OT-AAUP team decided to discuss those changes in caucus.

Recognition was discussed next. The Oregon Tech team summarized their changes, and the OT-AAUP team asked that instructor rank be added to the first paragraph of the article, to include librarians who teach but who aren’t tenure track. The Oregon Tech team agreed to discuss this in caucus.

Notices and Appointment was briefly discussed next. The OT-AAUP summarized the article, pointing out that it spells out policy that is already in place at the university. The Oregon Tech team agreed to discuss in caucus.

Management Rights was discussed next. This began a lengthy discussion. The Oregon Tech team asked if the suggested changes indicated that OT-AAUP was waiving its right to bargain over material described in Section 2; the OT-AAUP said no. The Oregon Tech team asked that the wording be made more specific to better indicate what OT-AAUP wants to retain the right to bargain and what it doesn’t. There was also discussion over the difference between “faculty” as a group and “bargaining members” as a group, and how that difference bears on the article’s claim that Faculty Senate, but not OT-AAUP have the right to participate in defining the university’s mission. The OT-AAUP agreed to discuss further in caucus.

After this, there was a brief discussion about scheduling future meetings. It was agreed that the next bargaining meetings would occur on 5/11, 5/18, 6/1, and 6/8. Each day’s session will run from 10am until 2pm.

The next discussion was of the Progressive Discipline article. The OT-AAUP team summarized the changes to the article. The Oregon Tech team explained that “suspension for the length of an investigation” is not possible, and that a time frame must be specified. Oregon Tech decided to discuss further in caucus.

The Association Dues article was discussed next. OT-AAUP summarized the article. The Oregon Tech team expressed concern about the process described, wherein a member provides notice of cancellation of membership in the union to OT-AAUP, which then notifies Oregon Tech. The Oregon Tech team suggested that a yearly window be established during which any member wanting to cancel membership in the union must express their intent. The Oregon Tech team agreed to discuss further in caucus.

Next there was a brief discussion of the Academic Freedom article. The Oregon Tech team summarized a new version of the article that ignored the previous version submitted by OT-AAUP. After a few initial questions, the OT-AAUP team agreed to discuss the article further in caucus.

Next, both parties TAed the Notices of Communication article.

The Oregon Tech team then argued that it would not counter the articles on Intellectual Property, Position Descriptions, or Appointments, Academic Classification, and Rank, because in their view those subjects are permissive, not mandatory. Despite a number of questions and arguments from OT-AAUP, the Oregon Tech team maintained that these articles are permissive subjects, and are ultimately rights reserved only for management. OT-AAUP pointed out that other Oregon universities have articles covering these matters in their CBAs; nonetheless, the Oregon Tech team maintained its initial argument.

 The next negotiation session will take place on May 11th from 10am until 2pm. If you wish to join, a Zoom link is available on the OT-AAUP website’s calendar page.

April 20th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP team proposed three article during this session: Donated Leave Bank, Labor Management Committee, and No Strike / No Lockout.

The Oregon Tech team proposed one article: Notices and Communication.

The session began with discussion of the Notices and Communication article. The Oregon Tech team changed the time limit for a response from seven days down to three to make the process more efficient. OT-AAUP asked if this time limit only applies to large-scale union issues, as opposed to private communications to/from individual faculty. The Oregon Tech team affirmed this. OT-AAUP agreed to discuss in caucus.

The next discussion was of the Labor Management Committee article. The OT-AAUP team asked why the Oregon Tech team does not want to implement this article until the CBA is in place: this would stifle the ability to discuss issues around COVID-19 and remote teaching. Oregon Tech maintains that this committee cannot discuss a CBA that does not yet exist. After OT-AAUP pointed out that there is no faculty voice on the existing COVID-19 task force. Oregon Tech argued with this, stating that there are three faculty members on the task force. OT-AAUP countered that none of these faculty are members of the bargaining unit and are either chairs or deans.

Next up for discussion was the No Strike / No Lockout article. The Oregon Tech team asked for a few clarifications, then decided to discuss in caucus.

Donated Leave Bank was the next article discussed. OT-AAUP described that this article is intended to protect junior faculty who need extended leave but don’t have access to FMLA. The Oregon Tech team asked for a number of clarifications, then agreed to discuss the article in caucus.

The next negotiation session took place on April 27th, 2020.

April 13th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

 The OT-AAUP team proposed four articles during this session: Non-Discrimination, Recognition, Appointments, and Notices.

The Oregon Tech team proposed four articles as well: Non-Discrimination, Labor Management Committee, Personnel File, and Management Rights.

Both teams presented their changes to the Non-Discrimination policy (each linked separately above), then agreed to discuss during caucus.

Next, the teams discussed the Labor Management Committee article. The OT-AAUP team wanted to see a requirement for a standing monthly meeting of the committee. The Oregon Tech team argued that this would be a waste of valuable time if there was no cause for a particular meeting. OT-AAUP agreed to discuss in caucus.

Recognition was discussed next. The main sticking point here was whether or not visiting faculty teaching at FTE .5 or above are included in the bargaining unit. OT-AAUP says yes, and the Oregon Tech team requests that more specific language be added to this effect.

Next up was Appointments. This article exists to define the different faculty classifications at the university going forward. The article was read, and the Oregon Tech team agreed to discuss it in caucus.

The discussion of the Notices article proceeded in much the same way.

The Labor Management Committee came up again after a caucus break. The Oregon Tech team requested that committee meeting requests include an agenda, and OT-AAUP answered that this is already written into the policy.

The Personnel File article was discussed next. OT-AAUP expressed a desire to know what documents are being placed in a faculty member’s file when they are placed there. The Oregon Tech team responded that the decision of what goes into the file and why shouldn’t include too many inputs. There were a few other clarifications provided by the Oregon Tech team, but no further discussion.

The next article discussed was Management Rights. Oregon Tech explained that this article describes what the employer can unilaterally change; in essence, whatever isn’t within the domain of the CBA. There was some discussion over the idea that the employer can unilaterally establish the university’s mission. Oregon Tech stated that the union should have no input on the university’s mission. OT-AAUP pointed out that the Board of Trustees also has input into the university’s mission, so this is not in fact unilateral.

The last article discussed during this session was the Labor Management Committee article (again). OT-AAUP removed specific language requiring the Provost or a designee being a required part of the committee (at the request of the Oregon Tech team).

The next negotiation session took place on April 20th, 2020.