\n\tBy SUSAN JONES<\/p>\n
\n\tThe Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has ruled that two surveys sent by the University last year to Pitt employees, including those in the bargaining units represented by the United Steelworkers, constituted unfair labor practices.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe unfair labor charges were filed in May 2025 by the Pitt Staff Union, which is negotiating its first collective bargaining agreement. A hearing was held in December and the ruling was issued on March 31.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe union in its PLRB filing said, \u201cWhen we voted to unionize, the USW became the sole representative for bargaining unit staff with regards to negotiating terms and conditions of employment, including wages and benefits, so it was unlawful to poll bargaining unit members about those things.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe University said in a statement that it \u201cis committed to continue bargaining in good faith with the staff union to reach a mutually beneficial collective bargaining agreement. We are disappointed in the hearing examiner\u2019s determination that conducting the University wide-survey of staff was impermissible, especially given the University\u2019s consultation with the union prior to distribution. We\u00a0are\u00a0in the process of reviewing next steps.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe PLRB hearing examiner said the University must \u201ccease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith\u201d and must turn over the results of both surveys to the union.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe first survey, administered by ModernThink and distributed to all faculty and staff, was sent to the USW before it was distributed. The USW objected to questions that asked employees\u2019 satisfaction with health care and other benefits, and open-ended questions about what employees appreciate most about working at Pitt and what would make it a better place to work.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe University responded that it had \u201cremoved several of the questions and sections and revised several others based on your feedback and our own review of the survey.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe new language asked employees to \u201crate your awareness of the following benefits and programs,\u201d instead of their \u201csatisfaction.\u201d\u00a0 It also contained a new question asking what would be \u201cThe main reason(s) I would consider leaving this institution.\u201d The survey was rolled out March 31, 2025 as the \u201c2025 Pitt Workplace Survey.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tIn April 2025, Chancellor Joan Gabel told Senate Council that more than 40% of eligible employees participated, and she later told the Board of Trustees that the survey found that \u201cnearly 90% said they understand how their job contributes to the University mission.\u201d But the survey results have never been fully released.<\/p>\n
\n\tIn the union’s opinion, the survey amounted to direct dealing with its bargaining unit members and solicited information about mandatory subjects of bargaining that would give Pitt insight into what issues were important or not important for bargaining unit members<\/p>\n
\n\tThe union said the questions were inappropriate because by asking bargaining unit members about their awareness of an issue, the University was asking, by proxy, how important an issue was to bargaining-unit members because.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe second survey \u2014 the \u201c2025 DOM Pitt Staff Satisfaction Survey\u201d \u2014 was sent in April 2025 by the Department of Medicine to its staff, which included bargaining unit members. The union was not given advance notice of this survey and learned when staff members reached out to a union representative for guidance, Jen Goeckeler-Fried, chair of the Staff Union bargaining committee, said.<\/p>\n
\n\tQuestions on the DOM survey asked participants to rate:<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\u201cHow satisfied are you with your current salary in relation to your role, responsibilities, and performance?\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t“I feel I was adequately informed and prepared to make a decision regarding the Union vote.”<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\u201cI am aware of my eligibility to join the union.”<\/p>\n
\n\tThe PLRB filing said the office of the chair of the Department of Medicine also sent repeated follow-up emails to staff members to urge them to participate in the DOM survey. Each message emphasized that \u201cas a Pitt employee, we would like your feedback regarding how satisfied you are with your job” and explained that “(y)our feedback will shape our policies and activities.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe PLRB hearing examiner said in relation to the ModernThink survey: \u201cThe University is thus directly dealing with bargaining-unit members by asking them their opinions on topics that are concurrently being bargained.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tFor the DOM survey, the PLRB said: \u201cThe same reasoning applied to the ModernThink Survey above also applies to the DOM Survey, which requests bargaining-unit members to reveal to the University their opinions on salary,\u00a0 which is a mandatory subject of bargaining.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIt\u2019s time for the administration to stop stalling and prioritize the employees who make Pitt work,\u201d Goeckeler-Fried said in a news release from the USW. \u201cWe were disappointed that the University chose to engage in illegal activity. Going forward, Pitt\u2019s faculty, staff and graduate workers hope to collaborate with the administration in good faith to bargain new contracts that are fair to both sides.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe USW represents about 12,000 faculty, graduate workers and staff at the Oakland and regional campuses. Graduate workers and staff have been in the process of bargaining their first contracts since early 2025, while faculty members began negotiating their second agreement early this year.<\/p>\n
\n\tSusan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu<\/a> or 724-244-4042.<\/p>\n \n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tHave a story idea or news to share?\u00a0Share<\/a>\u00a0it with the University Times.<\/p>\n