UAW RSE – UW Negotiations Recap for October 11
Background
This recap details the fourth virtual session between the University of Washington (UW) and United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 4121 for the first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for Research Scientist Engineers (RSEs). Recaps are published online on the UW Labor Relations website.
Union Counter Proposals
New Employee Orientation – The Union accepted the Employer’s proposal to clarify that only employees with a primary work location of the Seattle main campus will be required to attend the orientation. The Union also accepted the Employer’s proposal that the Union will be allowed up to 30 minutes (rather than no less than 30 minutes) to meet with employees if the employees do not attend the orientation. While the Union also accepted the Employer’s proposal to remove language stating that the Employer will require employees to attend such a meeting, it proposed to add language stating that the Employer would notify employees of such a meeting.
Union Package Proposal
The following proposals are part of a package proposal in which all provisions would need to be accepted as written in their entirety.
Purpose and Intent – In response to the Employer, the Union agreed to remove language stating that if the parties should mutually agree to alter the provisions of the contract, in any respect, any such changes would be effective only if reduced to writing and executed by the authorized representatives of the UW and the Union. The Union maintained its proposal for language stating that the Employer would not engage in any activity or enter an agreement with any other group or individual for the purpose of undermining the Union as the representative of individuals in the unit.
Union Rights – In response to the Employer, the Union maintained its proposal for reports the Employer would regularly provide the Union. Additionally, the Union maintained its proposal stating that the Employer would provide new employees with Union cards but removed language stating the Employer would return signed cards to the Union.
The Union also modified its proposal regarding release time in response to the Employer, reducing the number of employees that could be provided paid release from 10 employees to 7. The Union removed references to union orientations and grievance processing in the section on release, effectively clarifying that the proposed 7 employees allowed paid release for the purpose of bargaining a successor CBA.
Management Rights – The Union rejected the entirety of the Employer’s proposal regarding the rights of management under the contract. Instead, the Union proposed language based on the UAW Postdocs CBA (Article 3), though the Union proposal did not include the Postdocs language stating that the exercise or non-exercise of right retained by the University would not be construed to mean that any right is waived. The proposal states that management would have the right and responsibility, except as expressly modified by the Agreement, to control, change, supervise and evaluate all operations and to direct and assign work to all working forces. Examples of such rights include hiring, training, discipline, discharge, classification, reclassification, layoff, promotion, demotion, transfer, work schedules, allocation of financial and other resources, and control and regulation of all Employer property. The Employer would determine the methods, means, and qualifications of personnel by and for which operations are to be carried out and could take whatever actions necessary to carry out its rights in the event of an emergency.
Employer Counter Proposals
Healthcare Benefits – The Union’s initial proposal incorporated the agreement reached at the state level healthcare Coalition bargaining. The Employer proposed only minor housekeeping edits, which would more accurately reflect the Coalition language.
Corrective Action – The Employer accepted the Union’s proposal that a letter would be written to inform employees of the nature of inadequate performance but proposed that the letter be referred to not as a Letter of Warning but as a Letter of Expectations, as such terminology aligns with current policy. The Employer rejected the Union’s proposal to include a suspension or reduction in salary as forms of corrective action but proposed to add that removal of Principal Investigator (PI) status or PI eligibility status be included as a form of corrective action. The Employer modified the Union’s proposed language to state that the Employer could take other additional corrective action, consistent with or required by extramural funding agency requirements.
The Employer rejected the Union’s proposals regarding the written notice of intent, the response to the notice of intent, and the notice of action.
The Employer also rejected the Union’s proposal that no later than 30 days prior to a proposed determination, the Supervisor would provide a written summary of relevant facts, policies violated, and the basis for termination. Instead, the Employer proposed that at least 5 days prior to the meeting, the employee would be informed in writing of the reasons for the contemplated dismissal. The Employer also rejected language stating that the employee would be entitled to any materials that had been prepared, instead proposing that the written reasons for the contemplated dismissal would include any referenced documentation.
Employer Package Proposal
The following proposals are part of a package proposal in which all provisions would need to be accepted as written in their entirety.
Layoff, Rehire, Seniority – The Employer rejected the entirety of the Union’s proposal regarding layoff and reduction in time, which was based partially on the UAW Postdocs and Academic Researchers CBA at University of California (Article 11) with a number of modifications. Instead, the Employer proposed an article titled “Layoff, Rehire, Seniority,” which defines layoff and rehire seniority, and describes processes for rehire, including 12 months on the rehire list, a six-month rehire trial period, and circumstances in which someone may be removed from the rehire list.
While the Union proposed that layoff could only occur due to lack of funds, the Employer proposed that layoff could occur due to lack of funds, lack of work, and a reorganization. The Union proposed that employees would be notified of layoff six months in advance; the Employer proposed that employees would be notified at least 30 days in advance. Both proposals define seniority as length of service in calendar days with the UW.
Grievance Procedure – The Employer accepted the Union’s proposal to add language stating that a Union representative may be involved in discussions to resolve disputes at the lowest level, and that resolutions from pre-grievance discussions would not be precedential. The Employer maintained its proposal to add language clarifying that grievances are claims made by the Union on behalf of employees, rather than claims made by employees or the Union.
The Employer also maintained its proposal that grievances have four steps, that the parties have the ability to skip any of the first three steps of the grievance process, but only upon mutual agreement of both parties, and its proposal for the timelines originally proposed for moving step to step. The Employer accepted the Union’s language stating that resolutions at the First Step would not be precedential.
The Employer accepted some of the Union’s language regarding selection of an arbitrator, but modified the language to reflect that the mutually agreed-upon panel used for UAW’s other contracts with the UW would be used, and that changes to the panel would apply to all three UAW-UW CBAs. Lastly, the Employer maintained its strike of the Union’s proposal to regularly schedule arbitrations.
Next Steps
The next UAW and UW bargaining session is scheduled for October 17 and will be held virtually.