Labor Information

Background Information

On July 7, 2025, Tulane Workers United, an affiliated group of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requesting that the NLRB hold an election to determine whether Librarians wish to be represented by a union. The proposed bargaining unit consists of all full-time and part-time Librarians at all Tulane libraries (Howard Tilton Memorial Library; the Law Library; the Turchin Business Library; and the Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Collection). 

All eligible Librarians had the right to vote in person in a secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB on August 20, 2025. Twenty librarians voted in favor of representation by the SEIU and five librarians voted against.

Negotiations for a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) are expected to begin in mid-November. Tulane is committed to operating in good faith and following the rules and regulations established by the NLRB. Our priority is to ensure that librarians are as well-informed as possible.

Tulane will keep the community informed of relevant updates.

Timeline

July 7: Tulane Workers United, an affiliated group of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requesting that the NLRB hold an election to determine whether Librarians wish to be represented by a union.

July 16: Tulane and the SEIU reached a negotiated Stipulated Election Agreement that includes a description of the voting unit, the date and manner of the election, and other details required by the NLRB.

August 20: the NLRB hosted the election. Twenty (20) librarians voted in favor of representation and five (5) voted against. 

September 4: Tulane received a “Demand to Bargain” letter from Workers United requesting information about bargaining unit members and Tulane policies and procedures, and suggesting mid-November to begin bargaining towards a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

September 30: In connection with the annual open enrollment process, Tulane provided the union with notice of its intent to make updates to the healthcare benefits offered to all employees, effective January 1, 2026. While Tulane views such changes as part of a long-standing past practice since they are of a similar kind and degree compared to past years, the University offered the union an opportunity to bargain over the changes and to discuss the impact of these changes on members of the librarian union. 

October 21: Tulane and the Workers United met to discuss the annual changes to the health benefits plan offered to all employees. 

Tulane has been able to stay ahead of national trends of ever-increasing health care costs by leveraging its relationship with providers and vendors as well as its status as one of the largest private employers in Orleans Parish. As a result, for 2026, Tulane is providing its employees an opportunity to access a preferred network of hospitals through a relationship with LCMC that will result in lower deductibles and co-payments. At the same time, Tulane is below the national average for annual increases to the premiums employees pay for coverage with only a 4% increase in 2026 compared to a national average of between 6% and 10%. Tulane is also continuing to cover GLP-1 medications while other employers are eliminating coverage or significantly increasing the cost for employees. Though there will be an increase in co-payments for those taking GLP-1s solely for weight loss, employees prescribed GLP-1s for other diagnosis (like diabetes) may not be affected. The cost to employees will remain well below the average cost of such medication that can reach $1,000 per prescription refill.

Prior to the meeting, Tulane provided an initial offer to the Union to continue to provide members of the librarian union with the same access to the health benefit plans offered by the University to all employees, including faculty. This is consistent with agreements across higher education and is the same agreement Tulane reached with members of the unionized Non-Tenure Track Faculty for 2026 benefits. The Union rejected this offer but expressed a willingness to talk with Tulane regarding the changes. 

During discussions, the Union modified its original rejection of the changes and stated that the only change it would accept was the addition of the new LCMC preferred provider network. It rejected all other aspects of the changes coming for 2026. In addition, the Union requested that the librarians have access to the Short-Term Disability plan for faculty and administrators instead of the Short-Term Disability plan for staff. The parties agreed to meet again for further discussion.

October 30: The parties reconvened and Tulane presented the Union with a new proposal to allow unionized librarians to participate in the same 2026 health and welfare benefits as all other Tulane employees, and to extend the Faculty & Administrator short term disability benefit to all librarians. After a brief caucus, the librarians accepted Tulane’s proposal but requested that participation in the Faculty & Administrator short-term disability plan extend for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement (once one is negotiated). Tulane agreed to the Union’s proposal and the parties signed a memorandum of agreement. 

November 18: Tulane and TWU convened at 10:15 a.m. for their first negotiation in pursuit of a collective bargaining agreement. Tulane’s bargaining team included seven representatives from Tulane libraries and administrative offices. TWU’s bargaining team consisted of six librarians and four union staff members. 

Prior to the commencement of negotiations, Tulane sent the Union a set of basic ground rules intended to establish standards of conduct applicable to both teams. During the negotiation session Tulane’s lead negotiator asked if the Union would agree to the Ground Rules. The Union’s lead negotiator declined to sign the ground rules but stated her expectation that both parties would treat each other with respect. 

Following introductions, the Union’s lead negotiator read a prepared statement and then presented Tulane with seven proposals. She and the Union’s attorney talked through the various provisions. Tulane asked a few clarifying questions and then the parties broke for caucus.

When the parties reconvened, Tulane’s lead negotiator stated that the parties had reached tentative agreement on the Preamble (the introductory article to the CBA), and the Savings Clause (a provision that will allow the parties to sever a particular provision of the final agreement should it be declared invalid at some point in the future). Tulane’s lead negotiator then presented the University’s counterproposals to four of the Union’s proposals. After the Union asked clarifying questions, Tulane presented an additional proposal for the Union’s consideration before the parties broke for separate caucus.

When the parties reconvened, the Union indicated that there was tentative agreement on four additional clauses: Duration (covering the length of the agreement and process for amending it in the future); Personnel Files (allowing unit members access to their personnel files); Payday (related to the timing and manner of pay); and No Strike – No Lockout (prohibiting work stoppages and disruptions by bargaining unit members during the term of the agreement). The Union also presented a counterproposal. 

Prior to adjournment, the University suggested two December dates for additional bargaining sessions. The Union said those days would not work but did not offer any alternatives. The parties adjourned at 3:01 p.m.

2026

January 12, 2026: Tulane and Tulane Workers United (representing librarians) met for their second negotiation session at 3:25 p.m. In the course of five hours, the parties reached tentative agreement on 4 clauses: Payday (a provision that governs the timing of paychecks for bargaining unit members), Personnel Files, Duration (describing the duration of the eventual collective bargaining agreement), and Union Recognition (a clause that defines who the Union represents).

The parties also discussed clauses addressing No-Strike/No Lock-out (prohibiting work stoppages and disruptions by bargaining unit members during the term of the agreement); Union Representation (designating certain bargaining unit members as union representatives and allowing TWU the same access to campus as other non-affiliate groups); Labor Management Committee (composed of equal numbers of representatives from Tulane and the Union, this committee will meet regularly for the purposes of discussing issues of general concern to bargaining unit members); and Management Rights (a clause in a collective bargaining agreement which defines the roles and functions reserved by an employer to carry out its managerial responsibilities). In presenting its Management Rights proposal, Tulane made clear that it was willing to engage with the Union regarding matters important to its membership but seeks to retain any managerial authority not otherwise limited by the collective bargaining agreement.

In its counterproposal on No Strike/No Lockout, the Union added a sentence that would prevent Tulane from requiring union librarians to cross a picket line of a different union. This sentence is not in the same clause already tentatively agreed to by the Non-tenure track faculty union. Tulane pointed out that librarians work in multiple locations in New Orleans, including on Tulane’s uptown and downtown campus, and if another union stages a picket-line, it is unlikely to create an obstacle for all (if any) Tulane librarians.

Tulane recognized that some librarians may serve as “bargaining unit representatives” each academic year, but proposed language that would ensure a representative’s union duties would not conflict with day-to-day work responsibilities. Tulane also introduced language that would require the representative to provide notice if they are taking time away from work for union activity so that Tulane can arrange coverage if needed.

At the end of the session, the Union presented a new proposal on Union Security and Dues, proposing that Tulane serve as the Union’s dues collector through the University’s payroll system. The parties will next convene on February 25 and 26 to discuss this and other open proposals.

February 25: Tulane and Tulane Workers United convened for their third bargaining session at 4:30 pm. Both parties were represented by their full bargaining teams.

Tulane distributed a counterproposal on Union Representation. The new proposal aimed to address the concerns the Union raised in January about whether a union representative would have to take time off for union business during the workday. Tulane explained that while some aspects of a Union Representative’s role, such as answering questions from Union members, may not take much time out of the work day, other duties – such as supporting grievance and arbitration – may take hours of time and therefore disrupt the workday. In such instances, Tulane asks that the union representatives provide advance notice to their supervisors and take PTO.

Tulane next presented a counterproposal to the Union’s proposal on Discipline & Discharge. This counterproposal is consistent with certain sections of the tentative agreement reached with non-tenure track faculty, while other sections are specific to librarians. As an example, the article does not treat as discipline or discharge a Librarian’s separation related to a failure to progress from a Librarian I to II or from Librarian II to III. The Union, responded that it would need to see Tulane’s proposal on Promotions before responding to this proposal.

After Tulane presented these proposals, the Union distributed a proposal on Complete Agreement, an article that explains the CBA represents the full and final agreement representing extensive negotiations.

The parties separated for caucus and reconvened at 7:20 pm. The Union’s lead negotiator distributed proposals on Union Representation and Bargaining Unit Information. The Union acknowledged Tulane’s movement on the previous proposal on Union Representation and explained bargaining unit representatives would provide notice if a meeting was planned. The Union presented a new proposal on Bargaining Unit Information, stating the information that Tulane will provide on each union member each academic year.

Over the course of the evening, the parties engaged in discussion about whether the University’s remote work policy, enacted in January, could apply to librarians represented by the Union. Tulane explained that it was willing to apply the revised flexible work arrangement policy (implemented for non-bargaining unit employees at the beginning of the calendar year) to librarians represented by the Union. The Union agreed to expanding the policy to represented librarians as long as Tulane applied the policy fairly and acknowledged that the Union was not waiving its right to bargain over remote work as a provision of the CBA.

The parties adjourned at 8:03 p.m.

February 26: the parties reconvened at 4:30 pm, each with the same teams as the previous session. Tulane distributed its counterproposals on Union Representation and Bargaining Unit Information.

The University accepted the Union’s language that union representatives will endeavor to provide advance notice if a union representative has to take time off during the workday to attend to union business. The University presented a counterproposal on Bargaining Unit Information that made minor clarifications to the information the University is able to provide to the Union. The parties adjourned at 4:42.

When the parties reconvened at 6:05 pm, the Union’s lead negotiator announced that the parties had reached tentative agreement on Bargaining Unit Information and Union Representation. Next, the Union distributed a proposal on Grievance and Arbitration, the clause that governs how to handle disputes regarding the CBA. The Union’s attorney, explained that this proposed article was almost identical to the provision reached in the Non-tenure track faculty negotiations, with a few changes.

The parties adjourned at 6:14 pm.

April 7: Tulane and the Union convened at 4:32 pm for two days of bargaining. Every member of Tulane’s team appeared, but only 2 of the six librarian representatives joined the session.

Tulane’s lead negotiator, distributed Tulane’s counterproposal on the Grievance and Arbitration provision (a clause that defines the process by which to resolve contract disputes). He explained that the University wants to implement the same Grievance and Arbitration procedure, with the same steps, for librarians as the one agreed to between the Non-tenure Track Faculty and the University. Like the provision tentatively agreed to with the NTT Faculty Union, the University’s proposal adds a mechanism to resolve issues informally.

The Union’s attorney then asked if Tulane had a proposal on promotions as the Union was waiting to review that proposal before presenting its counterproposal on Discipline and Discharge, as well as a new proposal on Evaluations. Tulane responded that it was still in the process of drafting a proposal but taking care to be thoughtful about the differences in processes among the various libraries represented by the Union.

The Union then distributed its proposal on Flexible Work Arrangements. Under the Union’s proposal, requests by a librarian to perform all or part of their work remotely would not be “unreasonably” denied and Tulane could not revoke a flexible work arrangement without reasonable cause. In both instances, any dispute would be subject to the grievance and arbitration process. Under the Union’s proposal, a librarian’s “personal reasons” for requesting a flexible work arrangement would not be relevant to granting or denying a request, but Tulane, at its discretion, could grant a temporary flexible work arrangement based on such reasons.

Adjourn 4:48 for separate caucus to discuss the proposals. At (what time) the parties agreed to not reconvene that evening.

April 8: the parties commenced negotiations at 4:45. The University distributed its counterproposal on Flexible Work Arrangements. In presenting the University’s proposal, Tulane’s team acknowledged how important this issue is to librarians, but emphasized that Tulane is a residential campus that promotes in-person learning. The university-wide policy balances student expectations for in-person learning, faculty’s need for research support, and employee desires for flexible work by enabling eligible employees to work remotely up to one day a week.

The University’s proposal to the Union allows librarians to apply for hybrid remote work arrangements on the same terms and conditions as other Tulane employees. Under Tulane’s policy, a supervisor may deny a request for hybrid remote work based upon the needs of the specific department/office. The University’s proposal creates a mechanism for librarians to challenge the denial or revocation of a hybrid remote work policy by following the Grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement but denials would not be subject to arbitration. The Union’s attorney asked Tulane how this proposal is differed from the current process. Tulane’s lead negotiator explained that the current university process does not include an avenue to either appeal or grieve a denial of a request for remote work.

After an hour-long caucus, the parties reconvened. The Union’s attorney asked a question about the University’s April 7 Grievance and Arbitration proposal. After a little back and forth about the meaning of a phrase, the parties agreed to include identical language as agreed to between the University and the Non-tenure track faculty union and reached tentative agreement.

The parties adjourned the joint session at 6:18 pm and did not reconvene.

April 27, 2026: Tulane and TWU met for their 7th bargaining session at 4:40 pm. Tulane distributed a revised counterproposal on Discipline & Discharge and a proposal addressing Promotions. Tulane explained that since the Promotions proposal impacts Discipline & Discharge, the University is putting forward a revised proposal on Discipline & Discharge.

The University’s proposal on Promotions is largely consistent with the current Library Department practice, whereby librarians can be promoted from Librarian I to Librarian II after 12 months, and are eligible for promotion from Librarian II to Librarian III after 3 years. However, the University proposed amending the current practice whereby if a Librarian II is not promoted to Librarian III after 5 years, they are appointed to a 12-month non-renewable appointment. The University proposed that the 12-month reappointment be renewable.

The Union did not have proposals or counterproposals to present, so the parties adjourned at 4:55 pm.

After almost four hours, the Union notified the University that it was ready to reconvene at 8:50 pm. The Union distributed a new proposal on Flexible Work Arrangements. The proposal establishes a 2 days/week remote as the standard for all represented librarians. And, while the University can determine if a specific job classification is not conducive to one or two days of remote work per week, such determination is subject to challenge through the grievance and arbitration process.. The parties adjourned at 8:55 pm. At 9:30 pm, the Union informed Tulane that they would not reconvene that evening.

April 28, 2026: The parties convened at 4:45 pm. Four of the union’s bargaining team attended, along with two members of the union’s staff.

The Union distributed a new proposal on Job Description and Workload. According to the Union, the proposal was motivated by librarians’ desire to understand expectations around their job duties and how much time to dedicate to specific tasks. The proposal also anticipates how work will be covered when a vacancy occurs, and other librarians are asked to cover job duties until the position is filled.

After discussion of the proposal, Tulane informed the Union that it was rejecting the Flexible Work Arrangement proposal presented by the Union the previous evening. In rejecting the Union’s proposal, Tulane’s team explained that the University did not feel it was appropriate to substitute the University’s determination of what positions were conducive to a remote work arrangement with that of an outside labor arbitrator may or may not know higher education.

The union’s attorney then asked a couple of questions about the Promotions and Discipline and Discharge proposals shared by the University the previous evening, but did not provide any counterproposals.

The parties adjourned at 5:04 p.m. and the Union later notified Tulane that they would not have additional proposals to discuss.

Tulane offered thirteen days for sessions for May and June. The Union offered 2 days in June. The parties agreed to meet again on August 22-23 for 2 days of bargaining.