On or about May 8, an AAUP member in CLAS advised that their sabbatical application was denied, and the CLAS Dean's new "Guiding Principles" policy was cited. The paragraphs that are highlighted represent wholy new criteria for the award of sabbatical. This document is posted on the CLAS Dean website on Sabbatical Leave at https://www.pdx.edu/clas/sabbatical-leave . With the promulgation of this document, the University made unilateral changes to past practice that fall within AAUP’s scope of bargaining. PSU-AAUP did not receive notice of the Administration’s desire to change past practice, or the CBA.
Background
On or about February 22, 2016 the Association filed a Division A grievance over the University’s promulgation of a similar document “Portland State University Procedures for Considering, Approving and Monitoring Sabbatical Leaves January 18, 2013,” which was posted on the Academic Affairs website (http://www.pdx.edu/academic-affairs/sabbatical-leave) as “Oregon Administrative Rules/PSU Procedures for Sabbatical Leaves.” That grievance dealt specifically with paragraph 5 which stated: “Sabbatical Leaves will occur within a single academic year. Deans may use their discretion to approve the rare exception if a compelling case is made based upon the nature of the scholarship.”
In consultation pursuant to Article 7 the University agreed to withdraw the 2013 document from the OAA website, then the parties commenced bargaining on the matter while the grievance was placed in abeyance. The executed a new agreement on or about January 18, 2017 resolved the matter grieved and all matters that fell within the scope of bargaining about sabbatical leave. That expanded agreement replaced Article 33- Sabbatical Leaves in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Specific Issues with the New Guiding Principles
This new principles’ document likely violate the CBA, and/or violates established past practice as discussed during bargaining about sabbaticals as follows:
Paragraph 3: The ranking of sabbatical applications was not discussed in bargaining, it is not consistent with past practice, and it introduces an input into the sabbatical leave approval process (rankings from the chair) that is detrimental to certain faculty members.
Paragraph 5: The prioritization of TTF over NTTF for sabbatical leave was not discussed in bargaining, it is not consistent with past practice, and it adds a new criterion to the sabbatical leave approval process that is new, and detrimental to certain faculty members.
Paragraph 6: The prioritization of yearlong sabbatical applications over one or two term applications was not discussed in bargaining, it is not consistent with past practice, and it establishes a new criterion to the sabbatical leave approval process that discriminates against faculty members with lower salaries and less able to afford one year sabbaticals.
Paragraph 7: The requirement that sabbaticals be part of a faculty development plan was not discussed during bargaining, and is not consistent with past practice.
Paragraph 8: The requirement that sabbaticals “be related to what the faculty member was hired for…” is not consistent with Article 33 Section 1 of the CBA. Further, the narrowing of the scope of sabbatical projects that would be approved was not discussed in bargaining, and is not consistent with past practice.
Paragraph 12: Sabbaticals that cross academic years was discussed in bargaining. It was the subject of the Division A grievance filed in 2016 based upon new restrictions in the 2013 OAA document. The matter was bargained to completion. AAUP bargaining notes show that the approval of sabbaticals across academic years has been an established past practice and that the practice would continue and the we agreed on the removal of restriction language with a citation of the practice only in Article 33, Section 2, paragraph 4. As this was the subject of the grievance and the topic of bargaining, and this policy was promulgated approximately 60 days after the execution of the MOU, the promulgation of this paragraph may be an Unfair Labor Practice as per ORS 243.672.
Paragraph 13: In revised CBA Article 33, Section 2, paragraph 3 we agreed that Dean’s may consider how sabbatical leaves for associates contribute to their advancement to the rank of full, not that Deans would make that a priority.
PSU-AAUP Reaction
We crafted the Association grievance pursuant to Division A of Article 28 of the CBA, and gave PSU Vice Provost Academic Personnel and Assistant General Counsel a heads up in Labor Management Committee on May 10 that the grievance was ready to go. They requested an opportunity to "head off" the grievance by talking to the CLAS Dean. That conversation occurred in the afternoon of May 10 and the "Guiding Principles" document was taken down and would not be used while conversations between PSU-AAUP and Admin commenced. It is not clear to us whether the new "Guiding Principles" will be applied to future sabbatical requests.
Appropriate Remedy
At this point we believe the appropriate remedy is the cancellation of the new policy provisions and a return to the status quo that existed at the completion of bargaining in January 2017. Further, any faculty members whose sabbatical application was not approved based on the new criteria should be re-evaluated with the criteria in place prior to the Guiding Principles policy.
PSU-AAUP will remain open to having conversations with Administration about policy changes that they believe are warranted, at which point PSU-AAUP will consider whether sufficient rationale exists for re-commencing negotiations on the matter.