February 12th, 2025

Where we are: Today we brought questions to management regarding their proposals. We asked the University’s representatives for status updates on their counters or responses to USA’s proposals. We shared our Proposal Tracker, which shows that the University has not presented a single counter proposal since we presented our last proposal in November. You can view our Proposal Tracker here.

Senior Talent Acquisition Consultant Candance Berrena joined the University’s team today to discuss and answer questions around the University’s proposals for Article 14: Employee Compensation, Article 17: Vacancies and Promotions and Article 22: Layoff and Recall. Internally, the USA Bargaining Team and Negotiations Committee will continue working on counters to for Article 17 and Article 22.

Preliminary agenda for 2/26 bargaining:

• USA presents Grievance and Arbitration counter proposal
• 7-step proposal costs discussion
• Health and Safety discussion with Jeff Hescock
• University presents counter to USA’s Article 7: Bias in Discipline and Article 26: Disciplinary Action counters

Note: Abbreviations like 26.2 refer to Article 26, Section 2. Abbreviations like B.2 refer to Part B, Number 2 of whichever article and section is being discussed.

(Listed in the order they were covered during bargaining.)

University Proposal 4: Article 17 Vacancies and Promotions

• USA previously made a proposal on different sections for article 17. You can view it here.
• 17.1:
  • Updating language: replacing “appointing authority” with “hiring manager.”
  • Removed language is moved down to 17.2 for flow and clarity, since 17.2 deals with internal job postings and the application period for internal candidates.
• 17.2:
  • Added language that candidate needs to meet minimum qualifications, which is standard across campus but not represented in our contract language.
  • Added explicit language about hiring departments not considering candidates who applied after the 7-day internal application period.
  • Changing time period definition for the 7-day internal application period from business days to calendar days, which would shorten it.
  • Q: What’s the rationale behind changing to calendar days, which shortens the time period?
    • A: To make it consistent across unions; AFSCME and PSU use calendar days.
  • Q: Can you clarify what you mean by “meeting the minimum qualifications?”
    • A: We’re a federal contractor, so we have to follow their guidelines to assess minimum qualifications to ensure that we’re being equitable; we have to take what is on the applicant materials and compare them to the minimum qualifications on the posting.
  • Q: How are you proposing the 2 paragraphs in Section 2? Are you suggesting one or the other OR both?
    • A: It’s not meant to be 2 separate options for language for the contract, it’s meant to be put into the contract as-is and give 2 options for hiring. A (option 1) is close to our current language; A (option 2) means to establish a procedure to hire completely internally, by having an internal job search within the major budgetary unit (MBU) only. This was taken from PSU’s contract language. Hiring departments can still post it traditionally, but they would now have the option to post it internally only.
    • A: We currently don’t have any process for a completely USA-only search. Establishing an internal MBU-only search could make hiring USA staff faster if there’s a qualified candidate in an MBU-only USA member pool. If the MBU-only search fails; the search would still go to a 7-day internal job posting to the entire campus.
  • Q: Can you clarify what the MBUs are?
    • A: They are defined and we can provide you with a list of the MBUs.
    • A: The black box headers in this UMass Organization Chart define MBUs.
• 17.3: Updating hiring manager language.
• 17.4: No changes.
• 17.5: Parts A-D, language clean-up.
• 17.5 E: Allows for position descriptions for vacated USA positions to be changed before the 2 month time period for an employee to return to that position ends. If the USA employee that vacated the position returns; any updates to that position description will be reverted .
• 17.6: No changes.
• 17.7: Updated language.
  • Q: What is the definition of temporary here? For example, we have grant-funded positions and people brought in from temp agencies.
    • A: This is temporary/03, an employee that is hired on a temporary basis with no benefits who works less than half time.
• 17.8:
  • Q: What is the intention behind changing the time period for rehiring temp employees as internal candidaes for permanent positions from 3 years to 2 years?
    • A: 3 years is a long time, creates more uncertainty for hiring managers.

University Proposal 4: Article 17C Temporary Transfers

• Updating language.

University Proposal 4: Article 17D Work Area, Shift Preferences

• Updating language.

University Proposal 7: Article 22 Layoff and Recall

• 22.1 Definition of Layoff
  • Part A: Reduces the callback period for laid off employees from 2 years to 1 year.
  • Rationale: This is a management ask. It was a lot of work to maintain 2 years of contact with a person who has laid off.
    • Q: When the university recalls a laid off member who still has rights under article 22, can you provide a details about that process?
      • A: We’ll get that to you in the next week.
  • Part E: Adds 10 calendar day period that laid off employees can invoke Article 22 Section 1 Part G. Which gives members the option to bump members with less seniority in the same job classification.
  • Part G: For employees in layoff status, proposed language that requires them to notify their HR Business Partner when applying. For situations where the employee in layoff status is not selected, requires that a letter be submitted by the department that clarifies why the employee does not meet minimum qualifications. The letter must be approved by central HR.

University Proposal 3: Article 14 Employee Compensation

• Part C: Salary Adjustments for Employees Entering From a Professional Position
  • Incoming employees from a Commonwealth of Massachusetts public employer (ie municipalities) shall be placed at an appropriate step on the salary scale according to their continuous years of service. These employees have not been accounted for previously.
  • Using this provision for USA positions is rare but happens. It is most often used for incoming AFSCME employees and police officers.

Where we are: Today we continued the process of presenting our counter proposals and brought questions to management regarding their proposals. USA brought a counter to the University Proposal on Article 26 Disciplinary Action. The University’s representatives did not bring any counters, and made comments on our counterproposal and the informally countered USA Proposal 14: Farm Superintendent Reclassification. Classification Specialists from the Office of Human Resources Compensation Unit attended to answer questions on University Proposals 3 and 6.

FYI: Abbreviations like 26.2 refer to Article 26, Section 2. Abbreviations like B.2 refer to Part B, Number 2 of whichever article and section is being discussed.

USA’s Counter Proposals

Counter to University Proposal for Article 26: Disciplinary Actions

Click here to view the original University Proposal for Article 26.
Click here to view USA’s counter proposal.

• Our counterproposal rejects the removal of the language of “just cause” in the University’s proposal and clarifies what steps can be part of progressive discipline.
• Rejecting University Proposal 26.2: Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) are currently used by supervisors across campus, and the proposed modality for PIPs in the University’s proposal connects them to disciplinary action and creates a pipeline to possible termination. USA wants to maintain PIPs as a tool for employee development.
• Adding 26.6: We included language from the University Proposal 26.4 and 26.5 about timelines for notifications to USA about disciplinary actions and discharges.
• Adding 26.7: Bias in Discipline, which establishes procedures based on transformative justice to remedy harm done in disciplinary actions, as well as creates a Bias in Discipline Review Board to establish an appeal process for those who believe the disciplinary action process was unfairly biased.

University’s Counter Proposals

Management informally countering USA Proposal 14: Farm Superintendent Reclassification, by reasoning that the job title may move to another union, and would make our proposal irrelevant. The USA Bargaining Team disagrees and maintains that our proposal aims to regrade the current title since it is still a USA position. The issue of the same title being in multiple unions is a larger issue, and should not affect this proposal.

Caucus Discussion

In caucus, the Bargaining Team and Silent Bargaining Representatives discussed the value of keeping our suggested language about defining progressive discipline and just cause. Based on our discussions, the bargaining team will meet and look into making changes to our suggested language.

“Just cause” is a significant phrase in contract language and labor law, learn more about it here: https://www.ueunion.org/stwd_jstcause.html

Bargaining Team Discussion with Total Compensation Representatives Present and Answer Questions about Article 14: Compensation

After our caucus, Classification Specialists from Total Compensation joined management’s bargaining team to present and answer questions about University Proposal 3: Article 14 Compensation and University Proposal 6: Article 20 Classification and Reclassification.

Generally, the intention of the University Proposals 3 and 6 is to clarify and simplify language in order to better reflect the current process. Clarifying the language can also streamline the process and help fill vacancies faster.

Thank you to Alycia Fabry, USA’s Classification Specialist, for attending this bargaining session to ask questions to the University’s Classification Specialists!

University Proposal 3: Article 14 Compensation (Link)

Proposed Changes to Article 14 Section 5. Salary Adjustments

• Part A: Proposal for step-for-step classification process for employees entering the union from another classified position.
• Part B: Clarify what can be expected for new employees and their benefited years of service when coming in from a classified position for a Commonwealth of Massachusetts public employer.
• Q: What would people need to do to be recognized under this part of the proposal?
  • A: Right now, there’s nothing that we do for municipal employees. This proposal would help recognize the municipal employees, previously only state employees got that benefit.
• Part C: Honoring benefited years of current years of service for professional employees. Increasing transparency about where an employee can expect to be placed.

Proposed Changes to Article 14 Section 8. Salary Adjustments for Employees Entering From Another Campus Bargaining Unit

• Removing this section entirely.

University Proposal 6: Article 20 Classification and Reclassification (Link)

This article covers the classification appeal process. The intention of the University’s proposal is to clarify the process that we currently go through, provide realistic and achievable timelines, and simplify the language. They are not proposing significant changes to the process at this time, outside of updating timelines and offering clarification.

The Classification Specialists noted that now that their team is fully staffed and caught up on the backlog from the pandemic, they feel like they have a good understanding for how long this process takes. They have closed 29 classification appeals over the last 12 months.

Proposed Changes to Article 20 Section 2. Individual Appeal of Classification

Part A: State-Funded Positions

• A.2: Shortens the timeline for scheduling a job audit interview to 45 days; gives the Office of Human Resources Compensation Unit (OHRCU) the “right to close out appeals for lack of response.” This is current practice but is not represented in our contract.
  • Q: Can you clarify what “lack of response” means?
    • A: If they don’t hear back after a certain amount of time after reaching out to an employee, then they will close the appeal. It’s not a regular occurrence, but they want to make it clear and transparent.
  • Q: Can we work on quantifying that so it’s less vague? For example, if someone is sick or out for an extended period of time?
    • A: Sure, let’s look into that.
• A.3: Extends the timeline for providing a preliminary decision to 90 calendar days.
• A.4: Keeps the timeline for employees to submit an appeal at 10 calendar days.
  • Q: The employee has 10 calendar days to review the preliminary decision, and we’d like to entertain changing that to working days. That will be in our counter. Also, it is current practice for employees to ask for extensions, which the OHRCU has always been great about granting, but we’re looking for it in the contract so people can know that they have that option.
    • A: Please submit the counter including that language so we can look into it.
• A.5: Extends the timeline for providing a final decision to 90 calendar days.
  • Q: Can you expand on why this timeline needs to be extended to 90 days?
    • A: There are many meetings and discussions that happen internally and with departments. 90 days feels reasonable to conduct a thorough review and consistently meet that timeline.

Part B: Trust-Funded Positions

• B.1-4: Same changes as above.
• B.5: Adds a 90-calendar day period to schedule an appeal hearing after an appeal has been submitted by the employee.
  • Q: Who is involved in the appeal hearing that they would need up to 3 months to schedule? Is it a large group? It would be helpful to really understand the process and know why so much time is needed, since members will ask us that.
    • A: We’ll get back to you.
• B.6: Extends the timeline for providing a final decision to 90 calendar days. Adds an additional opportunity for the employee to appeal within 10 calendar days. After the appeal, there is an additional 90 calendar day timeline for the final and definitive decision.
• Q: Who is making the decisions? Who does the initial process and who makes the final determination?
  • A: The preliminary decision is reviewed in a smaller group in the OHRCU. Then it is escalated to our lead analyst or our supervisor depending on which stage we’re at. If one person is completing the hearing, then it will go to the supervisor above them to issue the final decision. It’s not always the same person, but it gets escalated up within the compensation office throughout the process.
• Q: If this is a similar process as for state-funded positions, why is it almost double the time (up to 14 months and 5 days) to consider these trust-funded position reclassifications than state-funded position reclassifications (up to 7.5 months)?
  • A: The hearing process and escalation to the Compensation Director is the equivalent of the external process. The external process is not factored into the state-funded timeline. Trust-funded processes are all internal.

Proposed Changes to Article 20 Section 3. Notice to the Association

Cleaning up old or irrelevant language.

Proposes Removing Article 20 Section 5. Campus Bargaining Unit Needs and Anomaly Correction Pool

• Q: What’s the rationale for removing it?
• A: We thought it was outdated and unnecessary but are happy to hear if that is not the case.

Where we are: Today we continued the process of presenting our counter proposals and brought questions to management regarding their proposals. USA brought a counter to the University General Proposal on Article 7. Management informally countered USA Proposal 14: Farm Superintendent Reclassification. USA also brought questions to management to inform our future counters.

USA’s Counter Proposals

Counter to University Proposal for Article 7: Anti-Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and Conflict of Interest

Click here to view the original University Proposal for Article 7.
Click here to view USA’s counter proposal.

• Management’s original proposal would limit avenues for addressing discrimination to one; any additional avenues of addressing the discrimination would not be acknowledged.
  • For example, if a member chose to use the UMass grievance process to address the discrimination they experienced, they would no longer be able to use the MA Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in addition, and vice versa.
• Our counterproposal further expands the list of protected classes to include all current and potential future protected groups, and rejects their proposal to limit avenues for addressing discrimination.

University’s Counter Proposals 

The university informally countered USA Proposal 14: Farm Superintendent Reclassification by offering to set up a joint labor/management committee and did not address the proposal directly. This is informal because it was not introduced in writing.

Questions and Discussion

USA Question on University Proposal 9: Article 29 Employee Evaluations

Q: What were the Affirmative Action goals and why were they removed?
A: This was an unintentional omission, this proposal is an attempt to be consistent across campus.

USA Questions on University Proposal 4: Article 17 Vacancies and Promotions

Q: Do you know how often an employee is dismissed during their probationary period?
A: Less than once a year.

Q: (Section 5 Trial Period) What is the rationale behind removing “this matter may be a proper subject for the Grievance procedure?”
A: The rationale is that removing this line would prevent possible pitting members against other members if the dept is holding the prior position open in case the employee reverts to their former position.

Q: (Section 7) What is the rationale for removing CC and replacing it with temporary?
A: Replacing CC/03, which is an antiquated term, with temporary/03.

Q: (Section 7) Does management have a term used to describe members in grant-funded positions?
A: No.

Q: (Section 8) What is the rationale behind changing the amount of years that a temporary employee can complete their term of appointment without being deemed “laid off” from 3 to 2 years? (Context: This affects whether or not a person can apply to a position as an on-campus or off-campus candidate.)
A: “Absolutely no idea.”