December 4, 2024
You may recall that at the beginning of last week’s session, UFISU Co-Lead Dr. Ashley Farmer cited section D from Administrative Code 80.1130.30, asking why ISU refused our request for joint mediation, and ISU Admin Lead Mark Bennett explained that we must first make a request to the Illinois Labor Relations Board (IELRB) to invoke mediation. Before we ended that session, Adam Heenan, our Field Service Agent from the Illinois Federation of Teachers, sent a letter to the IELRB asking them to invoke mediation, and they have done so. We have been assigned a mediator and will soon be able to schedule mediated bargaining sessions. Until then, we will move forward with our two remaining scheduled sessions on December 11 and 18.
At the start of this session, the Admin Table Team passed us counters, including a standalone counter on Disability Accommodation and a package on Grievance and Arbitration, Nondiscrimination, Professional Ethics (formerly Workplace Bullying), and Name Changes; after caucus, we presented a counter on the former, which also included new language we are proposing to add to previous tentative agreements (TAs) that reference ISU policies. We saw some key movement in the package that brings us closer to agreement, but we are still far apart on many areas of Disability Accommodation.
Disability Accommodation
After our significant movement on the last two Disability Accommodation counters, we were disappointed to see so little movement from Admin on theirs today. They continue to reject a sentence that states ISU can choose to provide accommodations and work toward an accessible institution beyond their legal requirements, claiming that such a statement would bind them to do so (it wouldn’t, but also what a weird stance to take in light of our strategic plan). The Admin Team also continues to reject our proposed timelines for response and accommodation implementation, even after we softened our language and proposed that ISU and members would mutually agree on essential timelines. They rejected our language that states members would not suffer adverse employment action if they cannot perform their duties while waiting for an accommodation to be implemented without offering alternative language. The Admin Team held on language that would allow them to request members with documented permanent disabilities to resubmit medical documentation. Bennett gave the example that ISU might ask someone with a degenerative disability to resubmit from time to time to ensure that their current accommodation is still meeting their needs, however we are concerned that the wording could undo the protection we are trying to establish to relieve members of the burden of resubmitting their documentation unnecessarily frequently. Finally, they continue to deny our Memorandum of Understanding on Proactive Measures that would include the establishment of an accessibility advisory panel and the publication of an annual accessibility report.
Some small moves toward our position include a provision that any accommodation requests granted or denied will be noted in writing; the latter would include an explanation of the determination. More significant movement includes the addition of language clarifying that members can grieve violations of procedures outlined in the article and/or in University Policy 1.3.1. Our team used this language as a template to propose similar provisions in previously TA’d articles (see the first paragraph of Grievance and Arbitration and Proposed Amendments to Previous TAs below for more information).
Grievance and Arbitration
In a previous counter, we packaged a withdrawal of Professional Ethics (formerly Workplace Bullying) with a stipulation in Grievance and Arbitration clarifying that, while we cannot grieve decisions made based on academic judgment, we can grieve the failure of ISU to follow proper procedure. The Admin counter today moved towards our position and added clear language that would address this. However, the addition of this language will also necessitate the addition of similar language on other articles to which we have tentatively agreed that mention ISU policies (see Proposed Amendments to Previous TAs below for more information).
While the Admin Team continues to hold on to a ten-workday timeline to file a Step 1 grievance (we have proposed fifteen workdays), they moved toward our stance on timelines elsewhere, including allowing five workdays after the conclusion of a Step 2 meeting for the Union to submit any required information that had not yet been included in the filed grievance; in addition, ISU will also have five additional workdays to issue a response after the Step 2 meeting.
The Admin continues to hold on to language that would limit the involvement of the Union if a member chooses to represent themself in a grievance. We proposed that ISU will notify the Union if a bargaining unit member files a Step 1 grievance, but the Admin team has rejected that provision. Other changes include small typographical and wording changes for clarity.
After the caucus, we presented a packaged counter on Grievance and Arbitration. Overall, we made some sensible movement toward the Admin’s language. We accepted their language on the grievability of ISU policies with the addition of a sentence that clarifies an arbitrator may overturn an academic decision if they determine that said decision was not based in academic judgment (basically, our concern is, what if, for example, a dean denies a sabbatical request because they just don’t like the applicant - we certainly hope that such a thing wouldn’t happen, but we also want to cover all bases). We are holding on a timeline of fifteen days to file a Step 1 grievance, and ISU must notify the Union if a bargaining unit member files a Step 1 grievance without Union representation. Ashley explained that fifteen days is a reasonable amount of time for a member to 1) recognize a grievable issue after its occurrence, 2) research the grievance process, 3) talk with the Union if they choose to, and 4) file the grievance. She pointed out that we are full-time professionals with obligations outside of work, so this time window is necessary. Ashley also clarified that since only the Union can advance a grievance to Step 3 and then possibly eventually arbitration, even if the Union is not involved in Steps 1 and 2 of a grievance, we need to be informed throughout the process.
Nondiscrimination
Both parties have matching language on this article, which is packaged with Grievance and Arbitration; we are awaiting agreement on the full package to sign a tentative agreement.
Professional Ethics (formerly Workplace Bullying)
Pending language agreement in Grievance and Arbitration and other areas of our collective bargaining agreement on the grievability of ISU’s failure to follow procedures outlined in policies, we will withdraw this proposal.
Proposed Amendments to Previous TAs
After caucus, we included this new provision in the package with Grievance and Arbitration, Nondiscrimination, and Professional Ethics (formerly Workplace Bullying), which clarifies the grievability of ISU’s failure to follow procedures outlined in any policies that are mentioned in previous TA’d articles on Union Rights, Personnel Records, Intellectual Property, and Program Reorganization, Consolidation, and Disestablishment.
Name Changes
The ISU Admin team has included their rejection of this article in their package with Grievance and Arbitration, Nondiscrimination, and Professional Ethics (formerly Workplace Bullying), but we are planning to address it in a different package next week.
Workload
The ball is in our court for this article, but after much deliberation, we recognized that we had too many questions to be able to respond, so Ashley asked several questions at the start of the bargaining session. Our goal in this proposal is to respond to the many, many member concerns we have heard about how our workload is codified (or, in most cases, how it currently isn’t); we want to ensure not only that we are compensated what we are worth, but that our workload is distributed fairly and equitably and that the guidelines for it are clear. While some areas of the Admin proposal seem reasonable at the surface (such as departments determining their own workload policies - yay, shared governance!), we are concerned that they could also be used to maintain the status quo (such as that said department workload policies would need to align with yet-to-exist college workload policies and be approved by the Dean and Provost - boo, potential to undermine shared governance!). Some questions Ashley asked include
Could this proposal be construed so that members could be assigned a 4/4 load against their will, and if so, would they still be required to meet the same research and service requirements for tenure and promotion? Bennett explained that wasn’t the intent, but that their proposal would allow for an advanced professor to choose to step back from research and service requirements as they near retirement to instead focus on teaching.
Would this proposal also entail ISU and/or colleges determining how service on university and college committees counts towards 100% FTE? Bennett said no.
What if a department determines best practices for a workload based on their field and the Dean and/or Provost rejects their policy? Bennett said the department would receive feedback and would revise to match college and university guidelines (that, we want to emphasize, do not yet exist and would be created after we ratify the full collective bargaining agreement).
How would teaching work that is currently not codified and, in some cases, not compensated (i.e., directing theses/dissertations, independent studies, required one-on-one tutoring sessions) fit into their proposal? Bennett said it would be up to the department (see previous bullet point for our concerns about college approval of department policy).
In practice, would the college or university approve a department policy that allows for overload pay or credit towards a course release for these teaching duties? Bennett couldn’t make any promises because, again, the college level policy doesn’t exist yet.
Overall, the answers we received about the Admin Workload proposal were not satisfactory. We recognize that this issue is important to our members, so the Table Team and Big Bargaining Group will work to develop a counter that maintains our intent to protect all of us from workload creep, creating clear guidelines for how much we can be expected to do and how we are compensated if we choose to do more.
Our next bargaining session is on December 11, 9am-1pm in the Alumni Building. We hope many of you will be able to take a break from giving and grading finals to attend and support our bargaining team. We’ll hopefully also have an update about mediation and Spring bargaining dates at that session.