\n\tBy SHANNON O. WELLS<\/p>\n
\n\tIn an effort to provide \u201crelatively simple guidelines\u201d for represented and non-representative faculty, \u201cso they know how to approach a grievance,\u201d members of the Senate Bylaws & Procedures Committee are reviewing the faculty union\u2019s collective bargaining agreement for categories of grievances.<\/p>\n
\n\tVolunteers are asked to \u201cfind key phrases\u201d in the CBA \u201cwhere something is prohibited\u201d and list them by article with an eye to developing an information packet aimed at non-represented faculty.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cMost faculty aren\u2019t intimately familiar with University policies and procedures,\u201d noted committee Chair Nick Bircher at the committee\u2019s April meeting.<\/p>\n
\n\tThis project, along with econsidering an update to address ad hoc committee formation, was discussed at Bylaws Committee meetings this spring, including on May 22, the final meeting of the 2025-26 academic year.<\/p>\n
\n\tIn a short presentation at the May meeting, Chair Nick Bircher, professor of nurse anesthesia in the School of Nursing, reiterated what he first explained in March, that committee volunteers review the current CBA, article by article, to develop potential categories of grievances.<\/p>\n
\n\tSeparate information packets are being developed for both represented and non-represented faculty to, as Bircher noted, help guide faculty through the CBA\u2019s and University\u2019s sometimes complex web of policies and procedures.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cOne of the projects we undertook this academic year, which will move into next academic year, is to develop an informational packet for both represented faculty, that is, those who are part of the collective bargaining unit, and non-represented faculty, with respect to how to file a grievance,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cBecause, as you would expect, the (CBA) is about 80 to 90 pages long, somewhere in there, and the assortment of grievances and the procedures that you have to go through are a little bit intricate.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tAt the April meeting, Bircher said when you \u201croot through all that stuff at the point that you already have a grievance, you’re really pretty much behind the eight ball. And if you’re a represented faculty, it is arguably a little bit worse, because the timelines in the (CBA) are pretty tight.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThat is, you have 30 days to file a grievance. I suspect that many of the people who are represented don’t actually know there have been some grievances denied on a timeliness basis.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe process for represented faculty is \u201cfar more simple\u201d than procedures for the non-represented faculty, who must consider a \u201cwhole constellation of University policies\u201d and determine if they have a grievance at all. \u201cAs we’ll see next year when we focus more on the non-represented faculty, there are some things which are precluded for the non-represented faculty as grievances in the policies.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tFor example, the AC 22 \u2013 Faculty Grievances<\/a> policy is, he explained, a \u201cpretty long list of things you can’t grieve using the conventional union mechanism.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tThe foundation of the assignment is \u201creally a pretty primitive list of topics with some minimal citations,\u201d he said of a OneDrive document made available to committee members. \u201cFor some of the other articles in the CBA, the actual procedure is governed by a University policy.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tThe first phase of creating an index, will, Bircher said, make it \u201ceasier to kind of march through and select items that are potentially grieve-able. We want to frame the grievance as a violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and \u2026 everybody will have the opportunity to sign up for one or more articles to review and then submit a very small table for each article of things that can be grieved within that article.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tBircher will assemble the main document, which includes articles already considered, represented visually as tables to provide some guidance to faculty members \u201cas to what is agreeable\u201d under the CBA. \u201c\u2026 The majority of what we’re going to be doing is from the collective bargaining agreement itself.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cTo the extent that there are other policies referenced, we want to list those too, so that the potentially aggrieved faculty member will know exactly where to go,\u201d he noted.<\/p>\n \n\tRelevant items include things \u201cfaculty might reasonably grieve\u201d that aren\u2019t listed as non-eligible for filing grievances.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cIt’s just essentially picking phrases out of either a University policy for non-represented faculty, or from a collective bargaining agreement for represented faculty,\u201d he noted. \u201cOr, if you have something that you are pretty sure should be grieve-able, but you can’t find the language, then we should identify that topic.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tIf a specific policy is referenced in the CBA as part of the grievance procedure, \u201cthat would be a secondary reference.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tThe CBA includes an article for which each school or unit is supposed to develop its own workload policy. Not all have been completed, however, and some that have are \u201csomewhat contentious,\u201d Bircher explained. \u201cBut it’s important to recognize that if a faculty member has to grieve an excessive workload assignment, they need to have access to the workload policy at the unit level.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tResponding to a comment about the need for grievance policy as the staff CBA is still developing, Bircher noted that \u201cat some point when the staff CBA is completed, there will be a Grievance and Arbitration article on that, because that is mandatory under Pennsylvania state law,\u201d he said. \u201cSo that will be the appropriate time to start developing that same set of tables, although the names of the articles may be slightly different in some cases.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cAnd for non-represented staff, I think there are a set of (Human Resources) policies that don’t necessarily show up on the University Policy and Procedures (website), but we’ll look into that.\u201d<\/p>\n \tAd hoc committee concerns<\/p>\n \n\tIn other topics, at the Bylaws and Procedures meeting in April, an informal vote determined that a bylaws amendment \u2014 which normally requires a Faculty Assembly vote \u2014 is not necessary to ensure \u201cadequate standing committee consideration\u201d for the creation of ad hoc committees.<\/p>\n \n\tThe discussion of ad hoc committees arose months ago when an Executive Committee proposal to create an ad hoc raised a voice of opposition, \u201cfeeling it had somehow stepped on the shoes of the standing committee,\u201d Bircher noted.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cWe’ve been talking about, \u2018Do we really need a bylaws amendment to provide remedies under those circumstances,\u2019 and the general conclusion at this point is, \u2018No, we don’t need an amendment,\u2019\u201d he explained, adding that elements in Robert’s Rules of Order parliamentary procedures allow committee chairs and Faculty Assembly members to challenge a committee created outside of shared governance.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cMost of the time, ad hoc committees are created by bringing a resolution to Faculty Assembly, (and) everybody votes on it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \n\tIt\u2019s become more common, however, for the Executive Committee or the University Senate president to simply create an ad hoc committee. \u201cThe question was, \u2018Do we have adequate checks and balances (via) Robert\u2019s Rules?\u2019 and the consensus right now is, \u2018Yes. There are adequate remedies.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tAn informal vote on April 27 affirmed that current safeguards are sufficient and an amendment is unnecessary.<\/p>\n \n\tSenate Council President Kris Kanthak informed the committee at the meeting that the Ad Hoc Committee on GenEd Requirements<\/a> will make recommendations to the Senate \u201cthat will likely include new committees.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tThese will require going through Bylaws, \u201cobviously, if we’re going to be changing (Pitt) bylaws to create some kind of new committee,\u201d she explained.\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tWith the administration wanting this done as \u201csoon as possible,\u201d she added it \u201cwould be great if we were ready with some changes to the bylaws for the first meeting of Faculty Assembly (in September). \u201cAt the same time, we will take the time that it takes to make sure that it’s done right \u2026 That’s going to be coming down the pipe very quickly.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cIt would be great if you all could get to it as soon as you can,\u201d she added. \u201cBut you should not rush the process. This is important stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tShannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu<\/a>.<\/p>\n \n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tHave a story idea or news to share? Share<\/a> it with the University Times.<\/p>\n