Labor Information

2025

March 11, 2025: Tulane and TWU met for a bargaining session well attended by both bargaining teams. Six of the Union’s thirteen elected bargaining representatives were in attendance along with eleven observers.

The Union opened the bargaining session by asking if Tulane had adopted a different position/proposal regarding the Union’s proposal on the non-discrimination clause from the prior bargaining session. Tulane stated that it was not modifying its position regarding the process to address claims of discrimination. The existing process, memorialized in policy, the Faculty Handbook, and University Senate bylaws, provides a robust framework for investigating discrimination allegations and for adjudication by faculty peers as part of shared governance. This framework was developed in collaboration with the University Senate, following extensive stakeholder and faculty review and input.

The Union then presented the Tulane team with three proposals addressing Appointments, Course Assignments and Cancellations, and a Labor Management Committee.

The Union proposed a new structure and process for appointments and renewals of non-tenure track faculty, including a ladder-style path for promotion and advancement upwards through four faculty titles (visiting faculty, instructors, lecturers, and then professors of the practice). The proposed structure represents a departure from the process contained in the Faculty Handbook. The Union’s proposal also requires the University to have a faculty composed of at least twenty-five percent (25%) Professors of Practice and Lecturers. If Professors of Practice and Lecturers do not make up 25% of the faculty, all subsequent hires/appointments must be Professors of Practice or Lecturers until the 25% threshold is met. The Faculty Handbook caps the number of Professors of Practice and Lecturers at no more than 25% of a school’s full-time faculty (with an exception for the School of Professional Advancement).

The Union’s course assignment proposal addresses issues of scheduling, course preferences, cancellations, and online teaching.

After a brief caucus, the Parties reached a tentative agreement to form a Labor Management Committee. The Labor Management Committee, consisting of equal numbers of representatives from Tulane and the Union, will meet twice per academic year for the purposes of discussing issues of general concern to bargaining unit members. The Committee will not be a forum to address grievances or issues related to an individual bargaining unit member.

The Tulane team requested additional time to prepare a comprehensive and thoughtful response to the Union’s proposals regarding Appointments and Course Assignments. The Parties will meet again in April at which time Tulane will present responses to the Union’s proposals.

February 12-14, 2025: Tulane and TWU met for three consecutive days of bargaining from Wednesday, February 12, 2025 through Friday, February 14, 2025.

Non-Discrimination

On January 31st, the Union presented Tulane with a proposal regarding non-discrimination. Though discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of a protected class are already covered by existing University policies, along with state and federal law, Tulane is willing to include non-discrimination language in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. This is consistent with Tulane’s commitment to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability (and including mental disorder, learning disability, physical disability), gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, military status, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, shared ancestry, veteran status, or any other status or classification protected by federal, state, or local law. Tulane’s commitment extends beyond mere compliance with the law.

Tulane and the Union spent the bulk of the three days discussing the Parties’ proposals regarding non-discrimination. The parties found common ground in agreeing that neither Tulane nor the Union may discriminate or retaliate against employees on the basis of any protected class. Both parties also committed to collective bargaining language prohibiting retaliation against those who participate in any investigation related to an allegation of discrimination.

Tulane proposed an anti-discrimination provision consistent with protections found in the National Labor Relations Act. Specifically, the NLRA prohibits the Union from discriminating against its own bargaining unit members who choose not to engage in union-related activity. The Union, however, refused to commit to such language. When pressed on this, the Union indicated that it did not want the provision used against them, because the Union intends to restrict participation for those members it deems not in good standing. Unable to reach agreement, the Union proposed eliminating this language in its entirety and Tulane is evaluating this proposal.

The Parties’ proposals were significantly different when it came to how to address allegations of discrimination. Tulane noted that the University’s Senate has adopted robust mechanisms to address allegations of discrimination by or against faculty. Further, Tulane emphasized that faculty members alleging discrimination have recourse through state and federal courts. The Union was not satisfied with these two fora and insisted on creating a third option through arbitration. Tulane objected to adding another fora since it could result in conflicting results and draw out any potential resolution.

The Union asserted that Tulane’s position was tantamount to eliminating or at best limiting the rights of union members to challenge alleged discriminatory practices. This allegation was a dramatic and antagonistic misrepresentation of Tulane’s presentation on this provision. Members of Tulane’s bargaining team defended the process developed through shared governance and spoke with pride regarding the commitment members of the Senate demonstrate in creating a fair and robust resolution process.

The Union expressed a distrust in the process developed by the Senate to resolve claims of discrimination (despite the fact that members of the bargaining unit serve on the University Senate, the Faculty Handbook Committee, and the Senate’s Committee on Equal Opportunity and Anti-Discrimination Grievances Against Faculty). The Union also suggested that the presence of the President, Provost and other members of the University’s administration has a chilling effect on Senate proceedings. As a result, according to the Union, many Faculty members on the Senate are afraid to express their opinions for fear of retaliation. Tulane’s team was surprised and disappointed at this characterization since it is at odds with years of experience and feedback on Tulane’s shared governance model.

Tulane observed that the Union’s language will have impacts far beyond the bargaining unit. If implemented, this provision has the potential to pull students in to appear before labor arbitrators at hearings, and to deprive other faculty members of investigation and hearing processes before the applicable University Senate committee (specifically, the Committee on Equal Opportunity and Anti-Discrimination Grievances Against Faculty). It also creates parallel processes that risk conflicting results. Ultimately, Tulane informed the Union that it will continue to work with stakeholders in an attempt to devise language acceptable to both parties while: 1) recognizing existing protections for faculty and students under the law and Tulane policy, and 2) preserving the hearing and process protections currently in place and developed in collaboration with Tulane’s various types of faculty.

Grievance and Arbitration

The parties also discussed Tulane’s proposal regarding the grievance and arbitration process. This clause will govern how the parties navigate disputes related to the collective bargaining agreement. The parties were in general agreement that the process will end in arbitration before a third-party arbitrator. Tulane’s team successfully addressed the Union’s concerns regarding how the arbitrator is appointed by proposing a selection process that relies upon mutual feedback. With that change, the parties were able to reach a tentative agreement on this provision. In reaching agreement both teams emphasized the importance of fostering a collaborative relationship in order to work through issues that may arise and resolve disputes early in the process.

The Parties also reached a tentative agreement regarding bargaining unit members’ access to their personnel records.

January 30-31, 2025: Tulane and TWU met for two consecutive days of bargaining on Thursday, January 30, 2025 and Friday, January 31, 2025.

Grievance & Arbitration

The parties spent the better part of the two days discussing the grievance and arbitration clause. This clause will govern how the parties navigate disputes related to the collective bargaining agreement. While both Tulane and TWU have common positions related to creating a step-based process to resolve disputes, there remain significant differences between what Tulane proposes should be included in each step.

Tulane emphasized the shared interest in resolving any dispute as early as possible and at the earliest step. The individuals most likely to be able to resolve a dispute in the early stages will be those most familiar with the issue. Frequently, this will be the union member and their academic unit head. Thus, the proposed first step involves a meeting with the aggrieved employee and their academic unit head. If unresolved at the first step, the matter progresses to step two before the appropriate dean (or designee), then, to step three and the provost (or designee). If the parties cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement on the grievance at step three, under Tulane’s proposal, the matter could be referred to a mediator (provided all parties consent) or, if there is no agreement to mediate, the parties may resolve the grievance at an arbitration. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process that is quicker and less formal than a trial before a judge. The Parties will continue to work on the dispute resolution process, including how to select arbitrators, during subsequent bargaining sessions.

Academic Freedom

When the parties met on November 20, 2024, Tulane provided TWU with a proposal that referenced the Faculty Handbook’s sections regarding the faculty’s rights and responsibilities when it comes to Academic Freedom. Tulane respects the vital nature that Academic Freedom plays in a university setting and appreciates the collaborative process that resulted in the approach to Academic Freedom detailed in the Faculty Handbook. On January 31st, TWU presented a counterproposal that supersedes the Faculty Handbook’s provisions on Academic Freedom. Tulane’s position is that there should only be one policy governing Academic Freedom for faculty, and the University Senate has already worked to create a deliberative, transparent process that led to the adoption of the current policy.

Other discussions

The Union then submitted a proposal through which Tulane would serve as the Union’s dues collector through the University’s payroll system. Through its proposal, TWU requested that Tulane deduct union dues and/or agency fees directly from a bargaining unit member’s paycheck upon receipt of written authorization from the bargaining unit member. Tulane noted that it had serious reservations about serving as collector for a third party, the Union, and submitted that the Union is qualified to obtain payment of dues directly from its members. Tulane also expressed reservations over TWU’s proposal that Tulane collect contributions from members to TWU’s political action committee since tax-exempt organizations, like Tulane, are required to refrain from political campaign activity.

The Parties also discussed provisions related to non-discrimination and personnel files. 

January 7-8, 2025: Tulane and TWU met for two consecutive days of bargaining on Tuesday, January 7, 2025 and Wednesday, January 8, 2025. Both sessions were well-attended by members of each bargaining team.

The sessions were generally productive, and the Parties reached tentative agreements on provisions addressing pay schedules (a provision that governs the timing of paychecks for bargaining unit members), a savings clause (a provision that would allow the parties to sever a particular provision of the final agreement should it be declared invalid at some point in the future), union representation (allowing TWU the same access to campus as other non-affiliate groups), discipline and discharge, no strike/no lockout (prohibiting work stoppages and disruptions by bargaining unit members during the term of the agreement), and bargaining unit information (through which Tulane will provide TWU with information regarding bargaining unit members).

The Parties remain far apart with respect to the area of management rights. A management rights clause in a collective bargaining agreement defines the roles and functions reserved by an employer to carry out its managerial responsibilities. In its initial proposal on November 20, 2024, Tulane provided TWU with a comprehensive management rights provision that included a reservation of basic management functions, rights and prerogatives common across higher education. (For example, Tulane’s proposal reserved its right to determine its mission, objectives, academic calendar and curriculum). On January 7th, TWU made an unacceptable counterproposal that deleted the bulk of Tulane’s proposal. The Tulane team intends to stand by the spirit of its initial proposal since it reflects best practices within the field of higher education and is necessary to further Tulane’s mission “to create, communicate, and conserve knowledge in order to enrich the capacity of individuals, organizations, and communities to think, to learn, and to act and lead with integrity and wisdom.” While Tulane expressed its disappointment in TWU’s counter, it indicated that it was prepared to engage with TWU regarding the management rights provision in future bargaining sessions.

TWU also submitted a counterproposal related to the grievance and arbitration provision (governing how the Parties will address disputes during the term of the agreement). Tulane is in the process of assessing this counterproposal and looks forward to working with TWU further during the next bargaining sessions scheduled for January 30 and 31, 2025.