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.
- Q: Can you clarify what “lack of response” means?
- 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.
- 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.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.
- Q: Can you expand on why this timeline needs to be extended to 90 days?
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.
- 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.
- 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.