Dear Leslie and Laura:
We are writing to acknowledge Faculty Senate Resolution FSC2021.05.12.R1, which we received June 2. As you recall, in June 2018, AFLOC called for a “mutually amenable voting conduct agreement” in their resolution regarding an in-house vote (emphasis ours). This resolution was endorsed by the Faculty Senate Council (June 3, 2018). We note that the Faculty Senate now calls for us to abandon any attempt at reaching a mutually amenable agreement and instead “generally adhere to all AFLOC and SEIU proposals.” This does not meet the standard that AFLOC originally set nor to which the University agreed in August 2020.
To the other points in the resolution:
1. As we have communicated numerous times, the University has always been supportive of mail-in ballots and, in our April 13 proposal, digital ballots. Despite being very clear about this, it appears there continues to be confusion about this issue.
2. We agreed to a vote determined by the majority of votes cast in order to reach agreement this year, despite the fact that this could result in only a small minority making a historic decision on behalf of the majority.
3. If we are to proceed with a majority of those voting, there must be some mechanism that provides the needed assurance that the majority of our non-tenure-track faculty wish to be represented by the SEIU. Our proposals in this regard have been more than fair and modeled after an earlier SEIU/AFLOC willingness to increase the showing of interest.
Throughout this process, the University has made many other significant modifications to our proposed terms. We have even shared a list of faculty in the bargaining unit with SEIU/AFLOC, though this is typically not required until after a showing of interest. Unfortunately, that same spirit of cooperation and desire to reach a mutually amenable agreement has not been reciprocated.
We acknowledge there are some who believe the University should have had no role in the design of an in-house process. But in fact, after the NLRB declared itself to have no jurisdiction over religiously affiliated institutions, the only path to conducting an election was if we agreed and could negotiate a process, as the Faculty Senate has acknowledged in the past.
We remain committed to working towards meaningful progress for all our faculty, including advancing the discussion about the proposed teaching professor track and its suggestions to improve the working conditions of non-tenure-track faculty.
Sincerely,
Ed Ryan
Acting Co-Provost
Kate Morris
Acting Co-Provost
Catherine Murphy
Associate Provost for Faculty Personnel and Policy