A STUDY OF THE PROCEDURES USED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH FACULTY UNIONS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Thesis for the Degree of Phr. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ALAN CHARLES, (30E 1 9 72 .v‘ ' AAAAAA LIBRARY Michigan State University This is‘to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of the Procedures Used in Collective Bargaining with Faculty Unions in Public Colleges and Universities presented by Alan Charles Coe has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. deg-gem Education " G‘fi’v :- HUAB & SUNS' .BOUK BINDERY INC. L‘s-f ARV BINDERS Isl: anllfifljfl’i .ILICMSA] E" ‘I’; I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Mv‘fiw“ r4 t-VI..‘7IIII. (qt Od.m'n..£‘ .1. '1“ 5' "l‘fl' ‘ '5”? ' 4.3 I : “.mtznu u, . _ ‘ ‘.' I) ”we”: ,I‘ l‘ a '5 2 fi_ 1'!!! Mr9‘3.1.'.u. no: .1: ‘ - :-.‘.' I. e . . a; 44‘“ re.- m til? A .. : ‘ a; gym 24‘ .. . inltLt‘th' r~ - w . n_ . __~:n,..e Ln the: prop 4: at , . A r» ~ .A t tame Toollmtxvtz largasnaw, 1.2: F Err-.— The expan 10 5-5 and Laurie}:Siti finistration of ti '2: this study mic; u- p ‘ effect of facul :stitutions of fixation for ai ,...;'.e:.s in negoti :Izcllective be The purpos To deter: ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE PROCEDURES USED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH FACULTY UNIONS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY Alan Charles Coe The expansion of collective bargaining into col- leges and universities has added a new dimension to the administration of these institutions. It was anticipated that this study might add to the general understanding of the effect of faculty unionization on the administration of institutions of higher education and provide helpful information for administrators who are experiencing problems in negotiating with a union or who may enter into collective bargaining in the future. (1) The purposes of this exploratory study were: To determine the role of state governmental agencies, institutional governing boards and presidents in the preparations for negotiations and during collective bargaining with a pre- dominantly faculty union; :n O- (.1, To ceterm...e t, to prepare for aredcnirantly 1-! I CC ‘:e .e-.7||;ooe 1 I B . I H ‘ ‘ a. SLLM": VO¢.e~ faCJL ty ur‘iCon T...— Oéeer.;. 311‘» size '0 938;: are ft T‘e 0'" ganiza :L;:'ej; (l I Ch :zegctiatior s and The Staff add't ”mess. (3) th :6: £5de aations a“ '\ V» :adg?&. vt ¥akEn d‘q Jr . 'n: I s lutormathn “i \au“ M.» niatiOns ‘r YA ~‘ ‘V :._ ‘ t ed with .‘i‘res. ar‘e St “.1: ‘Sur\year i: Alan Charles Coe Rte prepare for collective bargaining with a 'predominantly faculty union; To determine the organizational procedures used during collective bargaining with a predominantly faculty union; To determine the relationship between bargaining unit size and the organizational procedures used to prepare for negotiations and during collective bargaining with a predominantly faculty union. The organizational procedures that were studied ; fuded: (1) the personnel involved in the preparations ‘h negotiations and the collective bargaining process, .igi'the staff additions needed during the preparations i‘éii process, (3) the training provided personnel involved IT; the preparations and process, (4) the planning activi- 5; undertaken during the preparations and process and ' glized a written contract with a faculty union December 31, 1971. All of the participants had ,: ‘\ 3:3: team that .. are faculty uni: arrived in the mews were ccnj .‘gs were presented The major £1 1. With the ex: education, aGez‘rcies c3; Preparatic: In in most uh: tAtiOns bet “Presenta for the f0 The invol,‘ Varied gr! PresidEnt EOVEY’er ' at] 4' '7". F been on a team that had bargained at least one contract Alan Charles Coe with the faculty union in their institution and they had been involved in the preparations for negotiations. Interviews were conducted to collect data and the find- ings were presented in a descriptive format. The major findings of the study were: 1. With the exception of a state system of higher education, personnel from state governmental agencies did not actively participate in the preparations for and during collective bargaining. In most universities, there were some consul- tations between institutional and state agency representatives, usually regarding the budget for the forthcoming year. 2. The involvement of governing boards in the prepar- ations for and during collective bargaining varied greatly in the universities studied. 3. Presidents did not serve on any bargaining teams. However, they generally viewed their role as being more than that of a policy-maker as indi- cated by their willingness to become involved in some of the planning prior to and during negotiations. 4. The groups that prepared for negotiations and the bargaining teams tended to be comprised of personnel wt. to academic , Ir tration. T. chief spore: q Stay one an L1; prsgran ‘. cat prepa: team. Generally , fiditional ‘ H *3! and pr Atterneys reant “ted t Ifi'.. . Alan Charles Coe tti. ‘_$§§§reonne1 who had job responsibilities related fi&,.§%e academic, personnel and financial adminis- .q' -'nn 5+.tration. The role of attorneys ranged from ,,M - 4 l #flglmn Chief spokesman to advisor. ”--:°5.— Only one university provided an intensive train- \ l ' 3 ing program prior to negotiations for the group that prepared for bargaining and the negotiating team. Generally, the institutions studied did not hire additional staff to assist in the preparations for and process of collective bargaining. Attorneys were employed, but they were from law firms previously retained by the universities. After the negotiation of a contract, five of the institutions developed new positions and staffed them with persons with job responsibilities related to faculty labor relations. only two universities planned extensively prior to negotiations. The other institutions generally reacted to union proposals. There was no readily discernible relationship ‘I fictween the size of the bargaining unit and the {procedures that were used in preparations for ~wvfj' 0;: .h- t 3“ '1 Based on the fi 2:511:35 of the part. rained for use by a ejziatisns and enga; 1.. 3" M.“ A“ U . ant-0.! «Jun. Alan Charles Coe Based on the findings of the study and the recom- mendations of the participants, a procedural model was developed for use by administrators as they prepare for negotiations and engage in collective bargaining with a faculty union. ASTJDY OF THE I EMSAIJIXG WI: A. V " . b CIJMHM A STUDY OF THE PROCEDURES USED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH FACULTY UNIONS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY Alan Charles Coe A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1972 . . "anoyr‘ “" bvui ‘wga . C " ALAN Ciflk L972 mouragww .. . \ "5“,51" 547': k:"uurin._- }‘ _ ~ , . I20]: n"; \a- m Oppat .2 1‘. . ' I 1 - - mat.‘ '1. 3‘6; Kalb; a.- ~p fin: .L .‘T‘ (:3. The" "M'bll, it} '41:» '79!:x"‘£%.’ ~ . I ‘9‘ The author is < 2:251: encourage'fier. ;e:‘.::. of his study, 3r. Laurine E. “ere-ran, for her cc stifling zany Opportu Q: ’- n {:3 ‘V‘I “'69“, DI. Richard L. manta committee Dr. C. Keith ( :uestudy and for I T‘un. n Q 53:3; Dr. Louis C. p. O.” Prepcsal and Sui ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful to friends and colleagues for their encouragement which was essential to the com- pletion of his study, especially: Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald, Guidance Committee Chairwoman, for her counsel and understanding and for providing many opportunities that have enriched my education; Dr. Richard L. Featherstone for his service on the guidance committee; Dr. C. Keith Groty for contributing his expertise to the study and for his encouragement during its crucial phases; Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos for his critique of the study proposal and support during the past year; And above all, my wife, Maurene! ii State: at < "urpcse of Sature of bleed for t Definition Assumpticr Limitatio: Overview < Film or '11:: COllecti.‘I Cation The E: ing The 1. Bar "my r The F Curre O in: Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem. Purpose of the Study . . Nature of the Study . . Need for the Study. . . Definition of Terms . . Assumption of the Study . Limitations of the Study. Overview of the Study. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . Part I Collective Bargaining in Higher Edu- cation . . . . . . . . . . . The Expansion of Collective Bargain— ing Into Public Employment . . . The Legal Status of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education . . Why Faculty Members Unionize . . . The Faculty Organizations . . Current Status of Collective Bargain- ing . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Part II Review of Related Research . . . . . Faculty-Administrator Attitudes . . The Role of State Agencies, Govern- ing Boards and Presidents in C01— lective Bargaining . . . . . . iii y. 14 15 25 46 65 77 80 80 85 C‘- 0»! Preparatic ing . . The Bargai The Outcc: ing . SCSBI} . II. YETHCDGLOGY . he Populati The Researc? The lnstrune The Pilot 8: En Collect: he Presenta Surary . assassins): C The Role of Governing State Cc Institu Preside: The Organi the Pre; During t Process. P9rsonr taffir Traini: Plannil The ReCozt PeISon Sta‘C: “L 'Preparations for Collective Bargain- ing I I O O O I I C O I O The Bargaining Team . . . . The Outcomes of Collective Bargain- ing 0 O D O O D O O O O O Summary . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . The Population . . . The Research Interview The Instrument . . . The Pilot Study. . . The Collection of Data The Presentation of Data. Summary . . . . . l O C I I I I O O I O D I I I O O O I a a a o o u‘ o O I O O O I I o o o o e o a PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS. . . . . . . The Role of State Governmental Agencies, Governing Boards and Presidents. . . State Governmental Agencies . . . Institutional Governing Boards. . . Presidents . . . . . . . . . The Organizational Procedures Used in the Preparations for Negotiations and During the Collective Bargaining Process. . . . . . . . . . . Personnel. . . . . Staffing . . . . . Training . . . . Planning/Information . -The Recommendations of the Participants. Personnel. . Staffing . . Training . . Planning . . Information . , 'Y, CONCLUSIONS, GUIDELINES AND fRECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . iv Page 90 96 104 115 118 118 120 122 124 125 126 129 131 131 132 136 141 145 145 152 158 163 178 179 189 194 198 205 \ V Y S‘Jnag‘x . Findincs an The Role cies, Boaris The 0:9: in ti‘u aticn Barge ' :gain Ship The Rec pants ‘. Guide.ines Explcr. Prelim Inter:- Final Planni Post—x ImPllcat; .“HMh\ N 'K‘JGK‘U'HY . I‘m-n. .._ ..u‘.‘::‘s ‘h. V n fiiflx 1. Interview G hmroductor ‘I‘. "Ismary 0 I o o o I I a I I f ' Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . The Role of State Governmental Agen- cies, Institutional Governing Boards and Presidents. . . The Organizational Procedures Used in the Preparations for Negoti- ations and During the Collective Bargaining Process. . Bargaining Unit Size and Its Relation- ship to Organizational Procedures. . The Recommendations of the Partici- pants . . . . . . . . . . . Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . Exploratory Preparation (Phase I) . Preliminary Preparations (Phase II). Intermediate Preparations (Phase III) Final Preparations (Phase IV). Planning During Negotiations (Phase V). Post-Negotiation Procedures (Phase VI). Implications for Further Research '. . . Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . -”3' Introductory Letter and Reply Form . . . . Page 210 212 212 216 222 223 227 227 231 237 241 252 254 256 283 '.. Bargaining Agents .4 State and Facz 1972 . Contracts in Put Universities- . Bargaining Age“: c.1- , Colleges and It . ASmary of th Gover mental for Negotiat Bargaining I Hlmary of t‘. tional Gove ations for lective Bar Decision-liaki: Tears-s Dur i: Process A Study of in the pm In the Col tor-.positiOn ' Par ing f o LIST OF TABLES Page Bargaining Agents in Community Colleges by State and Faculty Organization-~May, 1972 D O C I I I I I O I O I I 67 ‘ efigaprContracts in Public and Private Colleges and 4 ‘is' Universities--April, 1972 . . . . . . 69 . Afia‘r - u :3. Bargaining Agents in Public and Private r gag”- Colleges and Universities--July, 1972 . . 70 '_;nR A Summary of the Participation of State/City f - Governmental Agencies in the Preparations uninr ' for Negotiations and in the Collective '. ’ Bargaining Process . . . . . . . . 133 A Summary of the Participation of Institu- tional Governing Boards in the Prepar- ations for Negotiations and in the Col- ~1ective Bargaining Process. . . . . . 137 Decision-Making Authority of Bargaining Teams During the Collective Bargaining I Process 0 I O I I I I I I I C O 140 1rA Summary of the Participation of Presidents in the Preparations for Negotiations and -.u in the Collective Bargaining Process . . 142 ‘~ _o€omposition of the Group Responsible for Pre- paring for Negotiations. . . . . . . 147 ‘5 Composition of Bargaining Teams . . . . . 150 ‘A Summary of the Responsibilities and Employ- ment Status of Persons Hired to Assist ‘ 1‘5; in the Preparations for Negotiations and Vf‘:axDuring Collective Bargaining . . . . . 154 vi 0,11 “nective tar: 1.21:3: economy and i alevels of govern irezzary and seconds :42 organizations f: ~‘.::;c':erning boards iilscgnt represent 33313119 has gained 413%! of college I" r. c‘. n “' “ie at)»: ‘ t ropriate 31LtliiCI‘.S of hig'nc 31"- trends continue ‘ . {3151! CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Collective bargaining between employers and employee groups has permeated the private sector of the American economy and is growing in federal, state and local levels of government. In educational institutions, elementary and secondary school teachers have turned to union organizations for representation in negotiations with governing boards. Community college teachers have also sought representation and more recently collective bargaining has gained acceptance among a steadily increas- ing number of college and university faculty members.1 While the appropriateness of collective bargaining in institutions of higher education can be debated, if cur- rent trends continue it may soon be a significant con- sideration in administering a college or university. Statement of the Problem Since 1960 several state legislatures have passed laws permitting employees in public educational institutions 1Donald H. Wollett, "The Status and Trends of Col- lective Negotiations for Faculty in Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review, No. l (1971), 2-4. 1 H "‘ A II . *. r :1: organizacic..s 4 ‘ “r envisages, nom ‘ ‘1 - ; i="‘:al Labor Relat. ':'.s;'.:': on over no :35 1'1: otter eve:- .":.~+~‘ve baVCa; n4. ~..V" i ‘4 ‘.0-4 am". ""‘o‘*eec och-own“ “5‘ l . ":v‘{_~ t....~~“1 boards a: v\ > .p.‘ P a... 2 4-..151 A5 “C21 ;.:'-gees to ne F‘- v 1.213 may be Ii 7‘ ‘ P" R ‘ \:g.£¢§t H d . 5‘ :3 “I .zerican Fe. 1.3.1 As soc ia: 3"" as -I 3.6..“ .ler' ciezsify the1 izlces an ....is..- na‘ 1 Qatar‘s f” '\ Jilin co“ ' 5 l_ 'h 1.:‘kv ' UVS p -‘I r . . 1 ~13 I I‘ ' "Y a“ " ~ ‘ ‘\2 O ‘ ‘l a“ ‘R ‘5. rfi‘ \:‘; ‘ ‘\J 2‘ ‘ -‘ {I -- ~:‘:" I ‘ ‘ \ ‘ g V' A «1:17 ‘as wages, hours and conditions of employment. The ifiional Labor Relations Board has also asserted its a fififisdiction over most private schools. The effect of ..; Shese and other events has been an increased interest in “ éoIlective bargaining by faculty members and other pro- . . Eessional employees. In many colleges and universities, gaverning boards and administrators are now legally ‘required to bargain in good faith with faculty organi- i-iations.2 As more states pass statutes permitting public ‘ refiployees to negotiate contracts, more educational insti- 4' v-tutions may be required to enter the arena of collective \_ liargaining. “: i _ The American Association of University Professors, E-f-the American Federation of Teachers and the National Edu- ‘:’ Qation Association have endorsed collective bargaining by :fl. atheulty members.3 If these employee groups continue to . ? intensify their organizational efforts, acquire additional i'lgnesources and gain a more experienced national leadership, .\:§ufl -nism may expand more rapidly in the future. How figgflflrepare for and work with this new phenomenon is a :confronting governing boards and administrators. 2Joseph W. Garbarino, "Faculty Unionism: From to Practice," Industrial Relations, 11 (February, 10.1-2. ,_3 ' aRebert L. Jacobson, "AAUP Votes Overwhelmingly to _»aining," The Chronicle of Higher Education, i *1 -‘ .15 of January 3- ::-':ear univers it ie 5 {gazisn had negotiate :gaizaticn. By J‘s-11' is:.1:y:-e2.‘:ers in 5011‘. :1: thirty-seven f: raring agents to 2 high the mother 0 :2 have a contract ieions has been s3 12:25:31 soon be a iléttive bargainin mistration of t‘r \ ‘4Herbert Ja Irony Comitte :T'E mversity . i 21:! P. 36. (Mir-J on union mes; '- "' "A. ‘ .‘ .. ‘-_‘QH w and the n 2":5; vu“‘e:e d as est‘l As of January 31, 1972, approximately eight, four-year universities and two state systems of higher education had negotiated a contract with a faculty organization.4 By July 3, 1972, it was estimated that faculty members in four state systems of higher education and in thirty-seven four—year institutions had selected bargaining agents to represent them in negotiations.5 Although the number of four-year colleges and universities that have a contract with the faculty is small, the growth of unions has been slow, but steady, and several insti- tutions may soon be affected.6 If this trend continues, collective bargaining will be a new dimension in the administration of these institutions. 4Herbert Jackson, et al., "Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining," Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, January 31, 1972, p. 36. (Mimeographed.) Data cited throughout this study on union membership, the number of bargaining agents selected and the number of contracts negotiated should be considered as estimates and subject to rapid change. 5"Colleges and Universities Where Faculties Have Chosen Collective Bargaining Agents," The Chronicle of Hi her Education, May 15, 1972, p. 2; I‘From tHe Campuses," 35% CEEonicIe of Higher Education, May 22, 1972, p. 4, _§Hd_'§I§§1e Union Voted at City U. of N.Y.," The Chronicle .of Higher Education, July 3, 1972, p. 5. 6Garbarino, "Faculty Unionism: Theory to Prac- "tice,“ 1. For evidence of student interest in unionism see William A. Sievert and Edward R. weidlein, "Beneath the ’Surface of Calm: What?" The Chronicle of Higher Education, «Harch 13, 1972, p. 5. c The oresence 0. area those {95290351 -.~:;:': to establish m:- sgwee-ezployer relat :sezeeied to pr pare selective bargaini We“ model of erj J is accepted, t1". 2,1156 colleges and ;:::e:";:es . Large and sna £113? 1‘, {gaining . Emailing unit a :Later.ted by these eageaeat relations 5'! inStituti 1. \w fan ”-11 RFD-t be ent; News with Simi‘ (‘E‘y' f? ‘e benec . “:3; la... ‘Qi'e not y; l ‘ c \‘.:S‘s ‘ a u The presence of a bargaining unit and contract has required those responsible for the governance of the uni- versity to establish new procedures for administering the employee—employer relationship. The procedures include those needed to prepare for negotiations and to engage in the collective bargaining process. Unless the labor- management model of employee relations from the private sector is accepted, there are few applicable precedents to guide colleges and universities in establishing these procedures. Large and small schools have been involved in col- lective bargaining. The relationship between the size of the bargaining unit and the organizational procedures implemented by these institutions to accommodate a union- management relationship have not yet been determined. Enabling legislation, the efforts of faculty groups, the increase in union membership and the negoti- ation of contracts have already had an effect on many schools. Although the organizational procedures imple- mented by institutions now involved in collective bargain- ing may not be entirely applicable to all universities, they may be instructive for schools in similar situations dealing with similar—sized bargaining units. Unfortu— nately, the benefits, if any, derived from such exper- .iemce have not yet been the subject of a systematic The purposes m m .o determn agencies, 1: :residents easily fag: 22‘. To deter-g; to Preparl A ". 0-1 “Galina: 5‘ I! 'q "0 To deter: in Colle de‘Jl t1. (1“ To dete ‘ 9 Purpose of the Study r"""J."he purposes of this study are: Gl) To determine the role of state governmental _t 2 '. “L . $765.1. ‘ v23 agencies, institutional governing boards and presidents in the preparations for negotiations and during collective bargaining with a predomi- nantly faculty union; an r ‘ ,, -to prepare for collective bargaining with a pre- 1n ‘15)(2) To determine the organizational procedures used .stl.' dominantly faculty union; . gagr {3) To determine the organizational procedures used it ‘ in collective bargaining with a predominantly faculty union; (4) To determine the relationship between bargaining unit size and the organizational procedures used to prepare for negotiations and during collective bargaining with a predominantly faculty union. '1, 2 Nature of the Study 9U:(,z This study is of an exploratory nature. According ,gerlinger, the exploratory study "seeks what is rather h*predicts relations to be found."7 Little evidence fLJto suggest that colleges and universities have been lized with regard to the organizational procedures afred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral (New York: Holt, RineHart and Winston, lnc., 88. 3c; :3 Prepare for 128 3233.13; process. T1 sexes, the institut; ;:es;ie:.t in these pro ., Lit-‘31 organizational i “-3.279 not yet beer. I n order to a: , | I‘m: areas will r | ;:e_:a:a:icns for coll: 3:125 bargaining pr; ~-'."-'ill seek infer: 5&5 in terms of the ;——‘: m. “‘9 Petsonnel negotiations . - v The Staff ads: for hegctiati ’_ L “‘e training bar ° . fi— \ 4 '7". sue plarlnin: ‘f‘ «o I 1'18th idt I. 3.3] "‘,. 5.. ' .1ng ‘x.. A . ~ unthr‘s C ‘ .51: tor SC o'n U‘tt i 'L» n t .(flused to prepare for negotiations and during the collective bargaining process. The role of state governmental agencies, the institution's governing board and the president in these processes and the relationship between organizational procedures and bargaining unit size have not yet been studied. In order to accomplish the purposes of this study, two major areas will require investigation: (1) the preparations for collective bargaining and (2) the col- lective bargaining process. The first aspect of this study will seek information within each of these two areas in terms of the following five dimensions: 1 (l) The personnel involved in the preparations for negotiations and collective bargaining process; (2) The staff additions needed for the preparations for negotiations and collective bargaining process; (3) The training provided personnel involved in the preparations for negotiations and collective bargaining process; (4) The planning undertaken during the preparations for negotiations and collective bargaining process; (5) The information used in the preparations for negotiations and collective bargaining process. ~ :Recommendations for other colleges and universities will . yaéleo be sought in terms of these five organizational pro- - 9&5 : 1 A The relationsh "2:221 procedures ar. allalsc be determine r=:e;-3'-:rer.z:er tal age ;:is ad president I I! ‘ g h‘ 51.325 i110 U16 COllet . ' Q 55553131350 . XE nly recently i itinistrators cc: ~52: education, M‘V‘: 8 A.‘ 2:” Ferguson st a. acpeal is made are the role of sinvolving t'n 3&3.;‘.‘Ses the me: 5f. g the nOn-aCa 1.. GIG auizatiORa; 5"? traditiona 3510? s 01‘ invc lace a real b“r; LPUS legal I I ‘§ .CIc Fitz: ,ul 4 '0“ S appeal wa * «Seded . Among the me 'n («a :F; “rung in edUCa: 'n of this Sch.» a“, on the mana' The relationship, if any, between these organi- zational procedures and the size of the bargaining unit will also be determined. Finally, the participation of state governmental agencies, institutional governing boards and presidents in the preparations for negoti- ations and the collective bargaining process will be ascertained. Need for the Study Only recently have scholars become interested in and administrators concerned about union activity in higher education. There is a need to know more about the subject. Ferguson states: An appeal is made here for some institution to under- take the role of collecting labor relations statis- tics involving the American campus. On our nation's campuses the ever-increasing organizational efforts among the non—academic groups and the apparent increase in organizational efforts by academic groups, whether along traditional bargaining concepts or modified versions, or involving new concepts of relationships place a real burden upon the practitioner responsible for campus legal labor relations.8 Ferguson's appeal was in 1968. It has only partially been heeded. Among the more active scholars to study collective bargaining in education has been Donald H. WOllett. A concern of this scholar is the impact of collective bar- gaining on the management of educational institutions. 8Tracy H. Ferguson, "Collective Bargaining in Uni- . versities and Colleges," Labor Law Journal, 19 (December, 1.12968) . 804. J :-,;‘.e:2 recently 53“ :fzescst Slll'Prisi :zgher education .9 - ~ 221:2. It 15 33E rial anderstandi ...:1:.-; on the adrti There are 5 1.21.1 be undertake atleast five putl ":5 53528115 of hi :2: the provisic 5331' union. '1”; TritItkli‘dty to CO ““31 Procedur n" . w. 5“; “"‘Ve barca‘ Furthem: fibllett recently shared Ferguson's view stating that "one of the most surprising facts of collective negotiations in higher education is the paucity of reliable infor- nation."9 It is hoped that this study will add to the general understanding of the effect of collective bar- gaining on the administration of colleges and universities. There are several specific reasons why this study should be undertaken. As of January 31, 1972, there were at least five public four—year institutions and two state- wide systems of higher education that were operating under the provisions of a contract with a predominantly faculty union. These institutions provide an excellent opportunity to conduct an early study on any new organi- zational procedures that may be required as a result of collective bargaining. Furthermore, an institution which is confronted with a union request to negotiate a contract may be able to benefit from this study. The past practices of col— leges and universities that have been involved in col- lective bargaining may be a source of guidance for institutions preparing for this type of employer-employee relationship. As a result of this investigation, administrators may benefit from the experiences of others. If adminis- 9Wollett, "Status and Trends," 9. 2:132:25. the 90551 322:2:‘25 decisions ’5 :ezzrs learn from t1 Itazial for interr‘ 221225. mission a35- :;::rtor relati Another rear sucrcvide infor: triversities tl“. miss nibargair aznefindings < Internate organ 33.31". and may St 3‘13? alternative 22:55:55.} With thi hm natio ‘- "5 ‘ .“|:S 33" e been :65" v Sne‘ :‘q, "‘: of a bargai: 22;;- «51 FIOCEdu a faCtOr i.“ . w....61 Should . ‘- A ~ ~‘ V§Q s lu- “S‘- k x £45., -colleagues, the possibility of making uncertain or erroneous decisions may be reduced. And as adminis- trators learn from the experiences of others, the potential for interruption in the institution's edu- cational mission and possible damage to faculty- administrator relationships may be reduced or eliminated. Another reason for undertaking this investigation is to provide information to administrators in colleges and universities that have contracts but are experiencing problems in bargaining with a union. It is anticipated that the findings of this study may provide information on alternate organizational procedures for accommodating a union and may stimulate thinking and provide decision- making alternatives for administrators who are not satisfied with their relationship with a faculty union. The national positions of the various faculty groups have been thoroughly discussed in the literature. However, little is known of the relationship between the size of a bargaining unit in an institution and organi- zational procedures. For example, is bargaining unit size a factor in determining if additional labor relations personnel should be employed? A determination of the existence of this relationship, if any, may provide information for planning in colleges and universities that have a contract but are enlarging their faculty or Williams sugge: :‘v-fstrator in colle ref an issue conce: :-:s.:::el that are in: 51:11:; barg in'ng? 3"- ...or personnel spe :1le provided to 3:2:g? Wrat is the “institution's gov- :lletive bargaining ifrnlty union in t‘r. :ass questions. It is antic i; regeneral unclersla‘| :12; on adniniste Eprcvide infer?-la 3513:5th are ex; ifa::1ty union or ..::zizational pro 10 Williams suggests research on the role of the administrator in collective bargaining.10 Bylsma has raised an issue concerning the kind of administrative personnel that are involved in collective bargaining.11 Is a new group of administrators emerging to work with faculty bargaining? Are they labor attorneys, academic deans or personnel specialists? What training, if any, should be provided to those involved in collective bar- gaining? What is the role of state governmental agencies, the institution's governing board and the president in collective bargaining? Administrators confronted with a faculty union in the future will need the answers to these questions. It is anticipated that this study might add to the general understanding of the effect of collective bar- gaining on administering institutions of higher education and provide information which may be helpful to adminis— trators who are experiencing problems in negotiating with a faculty union or who someday may have to implement organizational procedures to accommodate a union—management relationship. 10Douglas F. Williams, "A Study of the Organi- zational Procedures for Collective Negotiations in Fifteen Selected Michigan Community Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1970), p. 149. 11Donald Bylsma, Jr., "Changes in Organizational 'Btructure of Selected Public Community Colleges in Michigan r:~Since 1965" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University "\gg Michigan, 1969), p. 122. ‘ D8: sarcainina AGE” ——;l——---‘_--‘-—‘ l‘ :rgazization selec ‘ ‘ 1.. ;.. :12 as men exciasi. f::..e:tive bargain; I‘Fl"‘ A‘ “ . ‘ u ..ch volantar i .. _.- a 1 grant agencies. Bargainin L'r. 3115 and/or interes resentation by an :- ear-gaining uni: lit-ployers or des i: Certificat ion ‘--.------——;:; :r...:.g unit by an a 1 . C(>1.‘€3<:t:15‘rea E3 legiiiaeiop ‘Sv NEQot“ i :‘I‘ Fev‘ " ' Crer represg ‘ . I a. I u .‘p‘; H act (a 0::u 5“ “T“ln‘ tJ \JJ’EBEEE; ; 2“. a ‘w ‘n l‘vlnv ‘5‘ _ « SueClel“ IL ‘1 : ‘\: ’ 11 Definition of Terms Bargainigggégent (bargaining representative).-- The organization selected by employees in the bargaining unit as their exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Bargaining agents are either recognized voluntarily by employers or designated by government agencies. Bargaining Unit.--An employee group having related skills and/or interests which is the appropriate unit for representation by an organization in collective bargain- ing. Bargaining units are either recognized voluntarily by employers or designated by government agencies. Certification.--Formal designation of a union as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees in a bar- gaining unit by an appropriate government agency. Collective Bargaining (bargaining, collectiVe negotiations, negotiations).--A process in which employee and employer representatives exchange offers in good faith in order to agree on the employment relationship. Contract (agreement).--A binding agreement between employees in the bargaining unit and their employer specifying the nature of the employment relation- fiflfip. It is usually written and effective for a definite Exclusive Bar-3. .—-—-——'-‘- etatiz'e) ."The right I .,..;-'—r;.q acent to ba "’11:; non: fibers , Ass- This study is _. colleges and nni'~ earth a faculty ‘ ;::::-f::es to prepare :2 :cllective barg a1 Lin: In view of t --.'.. euro *5 “59d. the to g Q .:~- 1 . .s.‘..s 0 (l) Intentional {2) Respondents accurately of “390115. a“ be eli H «a ‘heSe d6 .V.rs ., E (15th e 1‘2.(~.‘,c;) ’ FY" - z.."-J|’ C011 3?.- ‘ ‘1‘; ..ev‘. “eCtl‘]¢ “W .“ 12 Exclusive Bargaining Rights (exclusive repre- sentative).--The right of the union designated as the bargaining agent to bargain collectively for all employees, including nonmembers, in the bargaining unit.12 Assumption of the Study This study is based on the assumption that four— year colleges and universities that have ratified a con- tract with a faculty union had to implement organizational procedures to prepare for negotiations and to engage in the collective bargaining process. Limitations of the Study In view of the nature of this study and the pro- cedures used, the following limitations may affect the results: (1) Intentional response bias by participants; (2) Respondents may not be able to adequately or accurately reflect their intent at the time of response; (3) The full range of organizational procedures may not be elicited through the research technique; 12These definitions have been adapted from Labor IdnvCourse (15th ed.; Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, ), pp. 299- 328; Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Jibskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers (Chicago: sand McNally and Co., 1966). pp: 415-:fif ‘ State laws re? ,1 1‘; players and change: LEI Not all varia'; v V ‘l ' . ré; Tne dynamics . and union-en; studied. 0': _ In 'napter I ,l "i "We ..,...rcses, nature, :trof‘xed. The litr reviewed in Chapter 1 25:3: used in this 3 “"4 v 3"“) are Presen 3631‘ m . mi. 1119 flnal C 2E 46" i ‘ ‘e‘rcped. Fla 4:555 on th l3 (4) State laws regulating collective bargaining, employers and unions vary and are subject to change; (5) Not all variables can be adequately controlled; (6 The dynamics of the collective bargaining process V and union-employer relationship will not be studied. Overview of the Study In Chapter I, the need for this investigation and (its purposes, nature, assumptions and limitations were introduced. The literature related to this study is reviewed in Chapter II. In the third chapter, the research design used in this study is described. The findings of the study are presented in Chapter IV. In Chapter V, the study is summarized and findings and conclusions are pre- sented. The final chapter also includes suggestions for further research and guidelines for preparing for negoti- ations and engaging in the collective bargaining process are developed. Chapter II is divided into two parts. Part I focuses on the developments leading to the emergence of collective bargaining in higher education and its current status in colleges and universities. In Part II, the research related to the purpose of this study is reviewed. ' ‘ .o n this c1151? ~ .. in rcg'ner educa: safes related to c: zersities will a1 .- Collect \- The struggle a “in "a we to take colle. .9“ ‘- «..:; an 5 condition. an”! ‘ .wiuent' lnClUd; ' Ms. L. Tale p‘ar pf- ‘ . '.. l‘ hk~ 5“ , V rue!) t3 leadi: .wg into insti‘ {Zr-"n \...E “n ...e (turret. Citron, . CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter the background of the union move- ment in higher education will be presented. Research studies related to collective bargaining in colleges and universities will also be reviewed. Part I Collective Bargaining in Higher Education The struggle of employees in the American labor force to take collective action to improve their wages, hours and conditions of employment has a long history. Today collective bargaining has permeated the private sector and has won acceptance from individuals in public employment, including many of those in educational insti- tutions. The purpose of this section is to review the developments leading to the expansion of collective bar- gaining into institutions of higher education and to : examine the current status of union activity in colleges l4 C ‘ ‘ ' “'c I' “we. I“. f ‘; '\a—3r.51~n O b“ .u- -" :;-;:;:.'.:o Into rut - .c threat W Although there .s:2i'.'e action by exp: '13 as 1741, the fi: ..... :elrights of Labor :fLahcr (“‘L, 1881) :2;=.:.12ations was la :5 legislators, the 212:5 and by the er l4 w...‘ v "n._r" ‘ o The early h I a, (I) (‘D r‘f (T ‘< ('0' C H U‘ C A_.J {2‘ PO ‘ rat-Err I a -. 1.. ‘Cdn 1 . “..::A'Vq ‘a; J" ‘0‘! r . a ' “a” 15 (The Expansion of Collective Fair—iganing Into Public Emp oygent Although there were sporadic attempts at col- lective action by employees in the private sector as early as 1741, the first union was probably the Phila— delphia Cordwainers established in 1794. Other early employee groups were the various city federations (circa 1828), the Typographical Union (1850), the Noble Order of the Knights of Labor (1869) and the American Federation of Labor (AFL, 1881).13 The effectiveness of these organizations was largely determined by the attitudes of legislators, the judiciary and the public toward labor unions and by the economic and social conditions of the .country.14 The early history of the American labor movement was beset by turbulence, and judicial opinions varied as to the legal status of employee organizations. Legis- lation, such as the Sherman Act (1890), the Clayton Act (1914), the Railway Labor Act (1926), the Norris La-Guardia Act (1932) and the National Industrial 13Labor Law Course, pp. 1,052-54. ? 14For a thorough analysis of the legal aspects of the American labor movement in its early years see Charles gilfiGregory, Labor and the Law (2nd ed.; New York: W. W. "tint'ton Co. , , pp. 52- . :Ju . \ exerylct (1933) d; L335the need for : riazicns was incont: 2""al Labor Relat: grass. The NLRA g‘car rived in inter-st: :;ir;ain with their 2... tiers of emplorr ratified for employ 33 MB) was est 7115 legislation st; 335316 sector, and W‘- at over 19 mi; The interest . ‘ F 3““ bY sin. a ly‘v Ship .. efl emplOyvees l N. ":r‘: :6 ‘2L _ s...llsh Organ I 16 Recovery Act (1933) did not result in industrial peace.15 By 1935 the need for strong federal intervention in labor relations was incontrovertibly established, and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was passed by Con- gress. The NLRA guaranteed employees in industries involved in inter-state commerce the right to join unions to bargain with their employers over wages, hours and conditions of employment. Unfair labor practices were specified for employers, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was established to administer the Act.16 This legislation stimulated the growth of unions in the private sector, and by 1969 union membership was esti- mated at over 19 million persons.17 The interest in unionism in private employment was accompanied by similar activity in the public sector. Skilled employees in Naval shipyards (circa 1800) and the Government Printing Office (circa 1860) were the first to establish organizations in the federal service, and 15For a discussion of the various statutes govern- ing labor unions prior to 1935 see Labor Law Course, pp. 1,511-14; Gregory, Labor and the Law, pp. 155—223. 16Act of July 5, 1935, ch. 372, 49 Stat. 449-57, Public Law 198. The NLRA has often been referred to as the Wagner Act. 17U.S., Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics, Directory of International Labor Unions in the United States, 1969 (Washington, D.C}: Government Print- 'n9 0 ice, Bu etin No. 1665, 1970), p. 65. axaziaral Associat 125.25": of several fine. Although the rage: in work stop; .1295; they served ':;3':ern:er.t‘s pcs; f::::c;erar.ce to he thinned by Presid In 1912 the 3331 parameters for '4'.“ federal service. ' " Ayn _ ‘ . I. .mmanizations ,_ Itgrnvide for cer‘ :szee unionism g 233:8, and several aiding the Kati 7-317) and the A: ..::4) , currentl l7 the National Association of Letter Carriers (1890) was the first of several groups in the heavily organized Post Office. Although these early federal employee unions engaged in work stoppages, their effectiveness was limited; they served primarily as fraternal organizations. The government's position regarding these groups ranged from tolerance to hostility. Lobbying was eventually prohibited by Presidents Taft and Roosevelt.18 In 1912 the Lloyd-LaFollette Act established the legal parameters for employee organizational activity in the federal service. This statute permitted employees to join organizations and lobby before Congress, but it did not provide for certification and recognition.19 Federal employee unionism grew gradually during the next thirty years, and several new organizations were established including the National Federation of Federal Employees (1917) and the American Federation of Government Employees (1932), currently the largest groups exclusive of those in the Post Office. Lobbying activities, particularly by the numerous postal unions, increased in the 1950's.20 18Richard J. Murphy, "The Federal Experience in Employee Relations," in The Crisis in Public Employee Relations in the Decade of the Seventies, ed. by Richard '3. Hurpfiy and Morris Sachman (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 1970), p. l. 19Lieberman and Moskow, Collective Negotiations fcar Teachers, p. 96. 2OMurphy, "Federal Experience in Employee Relations," pp. 1-3. 52:31.1; in federal 3:13:01 unions in 2 During the 19 2:: in the federal Elgar-treat of In: renter: Printing C 2.2.2.2:izy.22 The st. anon-existent exc- I::;:essional labor :rgazizations in the passed in 1947, 5.3199533 For 5-; ‘17: Serge M. Rhodo; wrung recognit. 2332);! ‘lCn prOC Edurq .111? c - “ ‘alled to wi 18 Membership in federal employee unions was roughly parallel to that of unions in private industry through 1961.21 During the 1940's some collective bargaining did occur in the federal government. Agencies involved were the Department of Interior, the Boston Post Office, the Government Printing Office and the Tennessee Valley Authority.22 The statutory support for these efforts was non-existent except for the Lloyd—LaFollette Act. Congressional labor legislation including the NLRA excluded organizations in the federal service; and the Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947, forbade strikes by government employees.23 For several years United States Representa- tive George M. Rhodes introduced AFL sponsored bills supporting recognition, binding arbitration and grievance resolution procedures for federal employees. This legis- lation failed to win Congressional support.24 There was some uniOn activity by state employees; and in 1938, 32 per cent of the cities with a population 21Michael H. Moskow, Joseph J. Loewenberg, and Edward C. Koziara, Collective Bargaining in Public Employ- ment (New York: Random House, Inc., 1970), p. 32. 221bid., pp. 36-37. 23Labor Management Relations Act, 1957, Act of lene 23, 1947, Public Law 101. This amendment to the NILRA also specified unfair labor practices for unions. 24Murphy, "Federal Experience in Employee Relations," p. 3. €3,623 or more hac “file evidence of be .h t‘e 1950's when Eiaielphia, New Yo: 332L355, t‘ne krericar t;:i;3l Employees ‘: rave bargaining a Accompanying lzyees in the fe; .m In: Pierican Federa: It}! nation Associatit :finiversity Profes :fzte 33'1“ and NBA ; .3531: positions c: :exre strong advocl relationship, and t ‘.e::;2:e bargaining. The Nat i0 r, 5‘. 19 of 10,000 or more had one or more unions. There was little evidence of bargaining at the state or local level until the 1950's when forms of negotiation emerged in Philadelphia, New York City and New Haven, Connecticut. By 1960, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees had negotiated an estimated 292 col- lective bargaining agreements.25 Accompanying the early organizational efforts by employees in the federal service was the establishment of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the National Education Association (NBA) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The original purposes of the AFT and NBA have little in common with their present positions on collective bargaining. They have become strong advocates of this type of employee—employer relationship, and the AAUP has recently endorsed col- lective bargaining.26 The National Teachers Association was founded by ten state teachers associations in 1857 to "elevate the Character and advance the interests of the profession of 25Richard J. Murphy, "The State and Local Exper- ieence in Employee Relations," in Crisis in Public Emplgyee Realations, p. 15. 26Jacobson, "AAUP Votes Overwhelmingly to Pursue ) Bargaining," pp. 1-2. | ,. an to promo 2'35 group became the esters groups--the :etiatianal Associa1 retentral College I Escsiatio eventual] fixation, which was eeszablished in 19 .lsszciation for High in. o a; corposed of ad: 3335 and universit; I iii‘xally from 170 r .. 30 I “.5. The nucleus Rizal independent ~ Securing a chart u ‘1“- The object “5:92:55 0f the 1 “'25:??asis was 1; z: economic well 20 teaching and to promote the cause of popular education."27 This group became the NEA in 1870 and included other state teachers groups--the American Normal School Association, the National Association of School Superintendents and 28 The Central College the Central College Association. Association eventually became the Department of Higher Education, which was disbanded in 1924 but then re-established in 1943. The Department became the Association for Higher Education in 1952, with member- ) ship composed of administrators and professors from col- leges and universities.29 Membership in the NEA grew ) gradually from 170 members in 1870 to over 600,000 in 1956.30 The nucleus of the AFT emerged in 1916 when several independent teachers organizations merged intent on securing a charter from the American Federation of Labor. The objectives of the group were to raise the standards of the teaching profession. And a great deal of emphasis Was placed on the teacher's classroom freedom and economic well-being. The Federation affiliated 27Edgar B. wesley, NEA: The First Hundred Years (Flew York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 13. ‘ 281bid., p. 44. 29Ibid., pp. 104-05. 3°Ibid., p. 397. ‘ tune an in 1919 :.-: group in recru: 5.313;, except duri if fad approximate In a study rite: education, I sun had issued C': ~¢C lacked a (11110 The AFT ' 5 o3." . N..ant H L“age r a} 21 with the AFL in 1919 but received little assistance from that group in recruiting members.31 Membership grew slowly, except during the depression,32 and by 1956 the AFT had approximately 50,535 members.33 In a study of the development of the AFT in higher education, Lester found that although the Feder- ation had issued charters to college locals prior to 1960 the growth of these groups was irregular and they also lacked a union orientation.34 The AFT's affiliation with the AFL gave it a militant image, and by 1935 the organization advocated collective bargaining for teachers. Prior to that time, its members supported teacher councils and greater par- ticipation in policy formulation. The NEA conceived of itself as a professional association working to improve 31Robert E. Doherty and Walter E. Oberer, School Boards and Collective Bargaining: A Changing of the Guard (Ithaca, N.Y.: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1967), p. 24. 321bid. 33T. M. Stinnett, Turmoil in Teachin (New York: “he MacMillan Co., 1968), P. 34Jeannette A. Lester, "The American Federation of {Niachers in Higher Education: A History of Union Organi- za-tion of Faculty Members in Colleges and Universities" “unpublished Ed.D. thesis, The University of Toledo, 1968, Dissertation Abstracts, 29 [1969] 2,930A). ‘ finality of Meric :Llective bar? a in in; In their earl szzezticn to college zzenxeteentn cent; :reasingly concerne 23.1.1.3? was founded :53 areas. The l9 zifunctions of Fac stranded that fac p..- ..:32d right of CC According U 2;:3tect the acad' 2;:Stdischar98, k inelcping the occu may modeled on 22 the quality of American education. The NEA's support for collective bargaining did not emerge until after 1960.35 In their early years, the AFT and NBA gave little attention to college and university faculty who by the late nineteenth century and early 1900's were becoming increasingly concerned about academic freedom and tenure. The AAUP was founded in 1915 to protect faculty rights in these areas. The 1920 "Report of Committee T on Place and Functions of Faculties in University Governance" recommended that faculty members have "power of initia- tive and right of consent in all matters of educational policy."36 According to Strauss, "The founders' purpose was to protect the academic freedom of individuals against unjust discharge, but they were also interested in developing the occupation of professor into a profession closely modeled on that of the 'true professions,‘ 35Michael H. Moskow, Teachers and Unions (Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1966), p. 107. Richard E. Petersen found in "An Analysis of the Goals of the American Federation of Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D. thesis, St. John's University, 1967, Dissertation Abstracts, 2.8 [1968], 4,388A-4,389A) that between 1915 and 1964 the goals of the AFT and NEA were similar. However, their unathods for accomplishing these goals differed. 36"Report of Committee T on Place and Functions of? Faculties in University Government and Administration," limerican Association of University Professors Bulletin, _ May, 0), 25. ‘ 211:1:6: and law. . . :a:aie:ic freedom 3 ::::e:n for economic referred to partic 1; 2:13: through facul‘ . 30‘. considered a: Little evide triers were involve .353. The AAUP sou; :verests known , uh 1' s ‘‘‘‘‘ ..:.sed their effort riseccndary schoo. :tlLective bargaini demanding of th r:'.a:ionship.40 Ho activity has been I 3152* in»: ..ion Associat; 23 medicine and law. . . . "37 Primary attention was given to academic freedom and tenure,38 and there was little 39 The Association concern for economic issues until 1959. preferred to participate in the governance of the insti- tution through faculty senates. Collective bargaining was not considered an appropriate activity for professors. Little evidence exists to suggest that faculty members were involved in collective bargaining before 1960. The AAUP sought alternate modes for making their interests known, while the AFT and NEA had not by then focused their efforts on higher education. In elementary and secondary schools, the NEA philosophy did not support collective bargaining; and the AFT was limited by its understanding of the ramifications of this type of relationship.40 However, some collective bargaining activity has been reported in educational institutions prior to 1960. In the early 1950's the Connecticut Education Association had developed a negotiation 37George Strauss, "The AAUP as a Professional Occu- pational Association," Industrial Relations, 5 (October, 1965), 129. 38Walter P. Metzger, "Origins of the Association," AAUP Bulletin, 51 (June, 1965), 236. 39Strauss, "Professional Occupational Association," 1231. 4oMoskow, Loewenberg, and Koziara, Collective Bar- gaining in Public Employment, pp. 142-47. )- K. ::-:ei22.:e known as c :Z'Larles T. Schri: Ifaazples of some discards of educa 13342 ther sig 5:111:35 by teachers In institu: Eilizited to nor.- 9: l?) ‘ .. 1.31 COLIEQES an: 7" v.5 D": ..-....c that they 1342. By 1959 emp '45 41 Exposes , 44 T-sscciation report earls had contra ......3:ts had beer 24 procedure known as cooperative determination.41 According to Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., "there are probably thousands Of examples of some type of consultations between teachers and boards of education over the past fifty years or 42 more." Other signs of concerted activity were 105 strikes by teachers between 1941 and 1961.43 In institutions of higher education, union activity was limited to non-academic employees. In a 1970 survey of 131 colleges and universities by TenBoer, 5 institutions reported that they had informally recognized unions before 1942. By 1959 employee groups were recognized on a total of 41 campuses,44 and the College and University Personnel Association reported that in 1949, ll of 42 surveyed schools had contracts with 14 different unions. In 1958 contracts had been signed in 28 of the 136 institutions 45 surveyed. Despite these early signs of union activity, 41Stinnett, Turmoil in Teaching, p. 9. 42Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., "Collective Negoti— ations: An Overview," in A Guide to Collective Negoti- ations, by Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., Hyman Parker, and Bob Repas (East Lansing, Mich.: Social Science Research Bureau, 1967). P. 3. 43Stinnett, Turmoil in Teaching, p. 33. 44Martin H. TenBoer, "A Study of the Extent and Impact of Organized Labor in Colleges and Universities," The Journal of the College and University Personnel Associ- ation, 22 (December, 1970), 43—44? 45College and University Personnel Association, Personnel Practices in Colleges and Universities, 1949, ._._; state Statutory 5;.» my and seco: _ c- ..:-O5 wees was alnos ..... u -- ' . : :-e:al Statas o- A__. f7 V V ..: N'- - .,.--n‘pn 1n 7‘ - :2“: ..... AU saint: L .L Prior to 19 5:: collective barg :3:i:u':ions. Fede gilic colleges and defied its jurisd 352 no school boar é§3tiate with a te State judi I ..: bargaining acti .. ..:e Norwalk Tear \ Etian . OfCit of 1 ..:...EIS could orc: :51? . .ed to negoti ”Cm could ar "g. ‘ 3‘. 25 the state statutory support for negotiated agreements in elementary and secondary schools and colleges and uni- versities was almost non—existent. The Legal Status of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education Prior to 1960 there was little statutory support for collective bargaining by employees in educational institutions. Federal legislation was not applicable to public colleges and universities, and the NLRB seldom extended its jurisdiction to private schools. Before 1962 no school board was required by a state law to negotiate with a teacher organization.46 State judiciaries provided only limited support for bargaining activity. In the 1951 Connecticut case of the Norwalk Teachers' Association v. Board of Edu- cation of City of Norwalk, the court held that the teachers could organize but that the Board was not required to negotiate. The court also ruled that while the Board could arbitrate some issues, it could not surrender legal responsibilities delegated by the pp. 26-27; College and University Personnel Association, Personnel Practices in Colleges and Universities, 1958, pp. 32-6 , cited’Ey TenBoer in "Extent and Impact," 41. 46Moskow, Loewenberg, and Koziara, Collective Bar- gaining in Public Employment, p. 131. .1 ‘ezzsleture in a broa ''''' :13: the control of Three argume 3:25 to deny teach ease doctrine of .. individuals or :12: into any invo‘ o... - ... public employe LEl: services. Th 3337835 may not be (1 ECSitin .n was that d annex: was the ...... 26 legislature in a broad arbitration agreement.47 This decision left the nature of the bargaining relationship under the control of the Board of Education. Three arguments were generally accepted by the courts to deny teachers the right to bargain. The first was the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which suggested that individuals or groups cannot compel the state to enter into any involuntary activity such as collective bargaining. A second position was based on the assumption that strikes were essential to collective bargaining and that public employees did not have the right to withhold their services. The final argument was that "delegated powers may not be delegated." The essence of this position was that determining the conditions of public employment was the function of the state legislature and could not be delegated to a lesser governmental unit. Although there were several counter arguments to these positions, they did not negate the judicial limitations placed on collective bargaining activity by groups in the public sector.48 Employee groups in private colleges and uni- versities, like their counterparts in public institutions, received very little legal support for union activity. 47Norwalk Teachers' Association v. Board of Edu- cation of City of Norwalk, 83 A. 2d 482 (Conn. 1951). 48Moskow, Teachers and Unions, pp. 39-45. Lucas in the privat' 3:50: Relations Act mired in intersta rials over whom tL" -:;L:yees. Private egressly excluded zationary author i t '1 .3212: is covered t; During its etitiored on name: 3313366 organizati election he held in it“. ieciding these 13.3 2'1an nOt beer) ...:. .hning whether a... In the caSe 27 Unions in the private sector are governed by the National Labor Relations Act which is applicable to employees involved in interstate commerce and does not cover indi- viduals over whom the state has jurisdiction, i.e., public employees. Private educational institutions are not expressly excluded from the NLRA, and the NLRB has dis— cretionary authority for determining whether an organi- zation is covered by the provisions of the statute. During its 36—year history the NLRB has been petitioned on numerous occasions primarily by non-academic employee organizations requesting that a certification election be held in a private college or university. When deciding these cases, the interstate commerce cri- teria have not been the sole standard used by the NLRB in determining whether the institution was subject to the NLRA. In the case of the Trustees of Columbia University and Community Social Agency Employees, Local 1707, the Board ruled that the activities of the University affected interstate commerce. However, the agency con- cluded that: Under all circumstances, we do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert its jurisdiction over a nonprofit, educational institution where the activities involved are noncommercial in nature and intimately connected with the charitable purposes and educational activi- ties of the institution.49 49The Trustees of Columbia University in the City v of.New York and Community and Social Agency Employees, . Local 1707 (C10), 97 NLRB 72 (December 11, 1951), During the l rinsed to assert it ;:;;’:y involved col‘. racial support f: 1:1:te:s:ate comei rscnools which we:- ‘ 577mm were deo 51 53nd. Prior to 13 3351111129 by Explc \ .Lamr Relations L" c. {E err to a :EEECAAI iz'lg by the B: 2'31, (J11? “,e 1'19: ) 50 See Benz" a.."‘on A toys SSOCiat] #3300346). 3;.PB3138I In ";: 28 During the 1950's and 1960's the NLRB generally refused to assert its jurisdiction over private, non- Profit educational institutions. Exceptions to this policy involved colleges and universities receiving financial support from privately owned companies involved in interstate commerce.50 Petitions from employee groups in schools which were partially funded by the federal government were decided on a case-by-case basis by the Board.51 Prior to 1960 the legal support for collective bargaining by employee groups in public and private 29 Labor Relations Re ort Manual 1098 (1952). (Herein- aftEE_EEfEEEEd-E3_E§_E§§MTT_—FSE an application of similar reasoning by the Board—see Carnegie Institute of Tech- nology (June 1, 1953), 32 EEEM 1310 (1953). 50See Henry Ford Trade School and Ford Industrial Education Association, 63 NLRB 1134 (September 25, 1945), 17 LRRM 55 (1946); Illinois Institute of Technology and District No. 8, International Association of Machinists, 81 NLRB 31 (January 18, 1949), 23 LRRM 1312 (1949); Port Arthur College and International Brotherhood of Elec- trical workers (AFL), 92 NLRB 40 (November 20, 1950), 27 LRRM 1055 (1951); California Institute of Technology and International Brotherhood of Electrical Wbrkers, Local Union 11 (AFL), 102 NLRB 137 (February 13, 1953), 31 LRRM 1435 (1953). 51Compare Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Lincoln Laboratory) and Independent Union of Plant Pro- tection Employees in the Electrical and Machine Industry, 110 NLRB 232 (December 15, 1954), 35 LRRM 1297 (1955); Wbods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Seafarers Inter- national Union, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, 143 NLRB 60 (June 28, 1963), 53 LRRM 1296 (1963) with University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science DiviSion and Seafarers International Union of North American, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, 146 NLRB 169 (May 6, 1964), 56 LRRM 1085 (1964). .":'es and Univ .:-‘2 HERB did m :-”3157 and laws :5:'.:'.‘ticns were :Lie: were takinfi statutary support fitmmig in the During thf 5:: state statutes :zargain intensj 55:: influenced Pith: and contrik fixation. “he «.n ~ . ....€',tl ‘Je bargair Several st 29 colleges and universities was almost nil. The policies of the NLRB did not encourage union activity in private schools, and laws covering employees in public educational institutions were non-existent. However, changes in the milieu were taking place; and as a result NLRB and state statutory support for collective bargaining was to be forthcoming in the 1960's. } During the 1960's the interest in and pressure for state statutes granting public employees the right to bargain intensified. Several complex and interrelated factors influenced the attitudes of legislators and the public and contributed to changes in public employment legislation. The new statutes were more supportive of collective bargaining by individuals in the public sector. Several states were influenced by the actions of the federal government. In the federal service the relationship between management and employee groups was * chaotic. There was a proliferation of organizations and varying degrees of recognition, and a multiplicity of i bargaining practices existed. Then in 1961, President John F. Kennedy, who had supported the recognition of federal employee organizations as a Senator,52 appointed the Task Force on Employee-Employer Relations in the 52Murphy, "Federal Experience in Employee Relations," p. 3. I q~‘ f! , 3., - m'n aeral Serv1ce. M are included in Exe Ptesident on January 'Iie Executi'. :ei‘xes for exployee 221:: of written ag: :2: rights clause. :zreased union act :ithe effect of s ..H antes similar in why 55 nbygy‘ . Several Ot.’ u. *3 Climate Condu; 1' Pliblic em; Si’JEred as Sites of 5 many Vita; had grown be 30 Federal Service. The recommendations of this group53 were included in Executive Order 10988 issued by the President on January 17, 1962.54 The Executive Order established recognition pro- cedures for employee organizations, authorized the negoti- ation of written agreements and contained a strong manage- ment rights clause. The Order not only resulted in increased union activity by federal employees but also had the effect of stimulating several states to pass statutes similar in purpose for employees in the public sector.55 Several other important considerations contributed to a climate conducive to change: 1. Public employees were no longer generally con- sidered as political appointees serving as para- sites of society. They were seen as performing many vital functions. 2. The number of individuals in public employment had grown and the nature of their services had become increasingly essential to society. 53U.S. President's Task Force on Employee—Manage- ment Relations in the Federal Service, A Policy for Em 10 ee Mana ement Cooperation in the Fe eral Service (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 19615. 54 Executive Order 10988 was modified by President Nixon's Executive Order 11491, October 29, 1969. 55Moskow, Loewenberg, and Koziara, Collective Bar- , fiffiinin in Public Em lo en , p. 135. S .1 1 1 L ) 3. Th nature C quality and t come inert 4, Government petitive wi u' - Public empl or second-c 6. There was \ action amoi .zese factors cont: greening the nat ..::e composition 56 StiHRE‘ 31 3. The nature of the services performed and the quality and preparation of public employees had become increasingly professional. 4. Government at all levels had to become more com- petitive with private and other public insti- tutions for competent individuals. 5. Public employees were no longer viewed as servants or second-class citizens. 6. There was unrest, aggressiveness and militant action among professional governmental employees. These factors contributed to a change in public attitudes concerning the nature of the work performed, the labor force composition and the rights of individuals in public employment. In addition to the changing milieu, other considerations contributed to the enactment of legis- lation permitting collective bargaining by public employees. Michigan was one of the first states to pass a law allowing collective bargaining by groups in 56Stinnett, Turmoil in Teaching, pp. 31—34. 56 aficv‘onal institu: ¢U$ :Luiec‘ that the eff. ..leaaers..ip of t1 :zcrtant factors 1 3.:31:a.. "Federation Lined for lecis‘. a J Excitation suppor‘l 2.3353033 the \‘EAs ation in fifteen s :3: faulty group! :: statutes in We \. S7 . . Frank H .2.‘.C ACt 3/9 of ----- D diSSE ~33” pp 115_ -21 58 Rive Charles “.3 n egargainln' ;T“*S“-ed Ph. D ’ p 233 J 59 :2: State W 60 $135150 ~ aNeCJOti 3: “..::O _nt ardS prc I 62 | “3.3!. Lewis : “OLE I ”I“ L. ’~ ' i he i \: 32 educational institutions. Hartman57 and Schmidt58 con- cluded that the efforts of labor unions and the support and leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party were important factors in the passage of this statute. The Michigan Federation of Teachers, an AFT affiliate also lobbied for legislation59 and the Michigan Educational Association supported a negotiations bill.6o According to Moskow the NEA sponsored collective bargaining legis- lation in fifteen states in 1965,61 and Mayhew reported that faculty groups have been involved in the passage of statutes in over ten states.62 57Frank H. Hartman, "The Political Evolution of Public Act 379 of the 1965 Michigan Legislature" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1968), pp. 115-21. 58Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., "Organizing for Col- lective Bargaining in Michigan Education: 1965-1967" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968): P. 233. 59"State and Local News: Michigan," Government Employee Relations Report, 75 (February 15, 1§€5$, B-fi. 6o"Negotiating Procedure for Teachers, Local School Boards Proposed by Michigan Education Association," Government Employee Relations Report, 76 (February 22, I B-Io 61Moskow, Teachers and Unions, p. 105. . 62Lewis B. Mayhew, "Faculty Demands and Faculty gglitance," The Journal of Higher Education, 40 (May, 1969), 9. illiill.|.. Wisconsin (3 astutcry support 5 --=:i::tion5. Inl ifiziigan, Oregon a: gutting negotiat; :z'ersities. Rhoi 3333653: (1967) sc states, laws appli: igie: education he telesare, Hawaii, .‘ Eeu'Earpshire, New 5:15: Dakota and y The legisl :mlC emplOYee s ' . uuuu 33 Wisconsin (1962) was the first state to provide statutory support for collective bargaining in educational institutions. In 1965, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Washington passed legislation governing negotiations by employees in colleges and universities. Rhode Island (1966), New York (1967) and Minnesota (1967) soon followed. In addition to these states, laws applicable to employees in institutions of higher education have since been enacted in Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Vermont.63 The legislation varied in its coverage of other public employees, the scope of negotiations, impasse pro- cedures and administrative provisions for implementation and enforcement. Some of the laws provided for meet and confer arrangements between employee and employer, while others permitted bargaining and written agreements. The Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin statutes were similar to the National Labor Relations Act. Strikes were permitted in Hawaii and Pennsylvania, and the 63Frederick R. Livingston and Andrea 8. Christen- fimn "State and Federal Regulation of Collective Negoti- ations in Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review, No. 1 (1971), 102. raaatpshire law -::'.:yees of the S Recent dec :Lle:tive bargai: """ universities . t’ al. and Assoc: 2:31., the Board asserting jurisdi :stit‘.‘tions. A ::-.‘3pervisory a .:::snale for th, .. The NLRB profit e af‘fect c k) . section interPre and EnCC affeCti; On the ] in Such “thong. ‘w‘as edu 34 New Hampshire law was applicable only to non-academic employees of the State University.64 Recent decisions by the NLRB have also supported collective bargaining by employees in private colleges and universities. In the 1970 case of Cornell University, et a1. and Association of Cornell Employees--Libraries, §£_gl., the Board reversed its earlier policy of not asserting jurisdiction in private, non—profit educational institutions. A representation election was ordered among non-supervisory and non-professional employees. The rationale for the decision was based on the following: 1. The NLRB has statutory jurisdiction over non- profit educational institutions whose activities affect commerce. 2. Section 14(c) of the Landrum-Griffin Act was interpreted as a Congressional policy favoring and encouraging jurisdiction over employers affecting commerce in that limits were placed on the Board's authority to decline jurisdiction in such cases. 3. Although the primary purpose of the institution was educational, to carry out such purposes it 64For an analysis of various state statutes see Livingston and Christensen, "State and Federal Regulation," 101-09; Moskow, Loewenberg, and Koziara, Collective Bar- gainingin Public Employment, pp. 131-32. had become comerce. E ment, hous: expend i tan 4. Increased J cation was that enplo afforded t profit sec 3- T..e growth tutions, c did not he agency as: affects C< natiOIIal disputes . u. . ‘‘‘‘‘‘ 35 had become involved in activities that affected commerce, e.g., real estate and securities invest- ment, housing and food services, large operational expenditures. 4. Increased Federal financial involvement in edu- cation was paralleled by governmental concern that employees in the non-profit sector be afforded the same opportunities as those in the profit sector of the economy. 5. The growth of labor unions in educational insti- tutions, coupled with the fact that many states did not have labor codes, required that some agency assert jurisdiction if the activity affects commerce in order to ensure an orderly national labor policy, i.e., reduce strikes, disputes. The Board stated that it was not prepared to establish jurisdictional standards for future decisions and would instead proceed on a case-by-case basis.65 In December of 1970 the NLRB established a more aggressive policy with respect to the application of the NLRA to private colleges and universities. The Board stated that it would assert its jurisdiction in cases 65Cornell University, et a1. and Association of Cornell Employees-Libraries, et al., 184 NLRB 41 (June 12, 1970), 74 LRRM 1296 (1970). 3.." private F ..:; Ia gross annua no expenses. lo .60 5:...ng Sue: it & 'r‘n elections be :se'eral of thes- W‘ that it wou‘. \ 6631ationai “WI 5 AWheat 53?“ Of Issuance ..:;cr Relations 53 iaograp‘ned ) . ‘N-Ctlonal St: 5:: :‘n‘iversities, rations Board, 4 36 involving private non-profit educational institutions which have "a gross annual revenue of at least $1,000,000 for 66 Faculty groups in several private operating expenses." schools petitioned the Board requesting that represen- tation elections be held, and the agency ordered elections in several of these cases.67 However, the NLRB has indi- cated that it would continue to proceed on a case-by-case 66National Labor Relations Board, "Jurisdictional Standards Applicable to Private Colleges and Universities, thice of Issuance of Rule," Washington, D.C.: National labor Relations Board, No. D4649, November 30, 1970. (Mimeographed.) The NLRB stated in "NLRB Sets $1 Million Jurisdictional Standard for Private Nonprofit Colleges and Universities," washington, D.C.: National Labor Relations Board, December 3, 1970. (Mimeographed news release, R1183) that the standard would cover approxi- nmtely 80 per cent of all non-profit colleges and uni- versities. 67See Long Island University (Brooklyn Center) and United Federation of College Teachers, Local 1460, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CID, 189 NLRB 110 (April 20, 1971), 77 LRRM 1006 (1971); C. W. Post Center of Long Island University and United Federation of Teachers, Local 1460, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-C10, 189 NLRB 109 (April 20, 1971), 77 LRRM 1001 (1971); Fordham University and American Association of University Pro- fessors, Fordham University Chapter and Law School Bar- gaining Committee, 193 NLRB 23 (September 14, 1971), 78 LRRM 1177 (1972); University of Detroit and University of Detroit Chapter-eAmerican Association of University Pro- fessors, 193 NLRB 95 (October 6, 1971); Manhattan College and American Association of University Professors, Man- hattan Chapter, 195 NLRB 23 (January 25, 1972), 79 LRRM 1253 (1972); Adelphi University and Adelphi University Chapter, AAUP,195 NLRB 107 (February 29, 1972), 79 LRRM 1545 (1972). ' "s when deter 3' ‘n educat is 3‘3: Faculty 33:332. —_ Although. 2:7. condition f 13. it has not :PLairing the , 13,-asides. : 336:5 to View 3311'; ity . The ARE faculty restiw 1‘ Rising and SO demand ticipe their ‘ .‘ “at :\::Cac“.h ‘h ‘w &.‘gs 1 \L: ‘?;‘ v‘ T"“53 rat .\:5‘A‘ ‘s -\.7‘ ~qn ASS‘ 3"“, n - “ “8“ I n‘ .‘ {Rifle fir: . -‘ ‘ 3‘“- as . E:‘;'~“\_'.1 has ‘ ‘Q‘lsi‘i C. \L: to"? v V_. s 37 basis when determining the composition of the bargaining unit in educational institutions.68 Why Faculty Members Unionize Although enabling legislation has been an impor- tant condition for the existence of collective bargain- ing, it has not been a sufficient reason for completely explaining the expansion of unionism into colleges and universities. Several causal factors motivated faculty members to view collective bargaining as an appropriate activity. The AAHEéNEA Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations cited several reasons for faculty restiveness: l. Rising expectations due to an improved economic and social status have resulted in faculty members demanding professional prerogatives, such as par- ticipation in establishing policies that govern their performance. 2. Universities, which were formerly small teachers colleges, have often lacked forms for faculty 68National Labor Relations Board, "Petition for Proceedings for Rule-Making in Representation Cases Involving Faculty Members in Colleges and Universities," American Association of University Professors (Petitioner), Order Denying Petition, washington, D.C.: National Labor Relations Board, July 16, 1971. (Mimeographed.) The NLRB decision was in response to a petition from the AAUP to establish guidelines for the determination of bargaining unit composition in private colleges and universities. ‘1' o participai in these about t'r. reactions use autoc secondary The erer: cation 13 making. and it 1. locus of have fe decisic The ra; reSult. ViEw F PrefeE Contri meats i“Stj vac; 38 participation in governance. New faculty members in these institutions may have strong opinions about their rights and have often had negative reactions to those administrators who continue to use autocratic techniques they acquired in their secondary school backgrounds. 3. The emergence of statewide systems of higher edu- cation has diluted faculty influence in decision- making. These systems have diffused authority, and it has often been difficult to identify the locus of decision-making power. Faculty members have felt that they have lost control over decisions that affect them. 4. The rapid expansion of higher education has resulted in an influx of new instructors who view peer evaluations as a method used by senior professors to maintain departmental control. 5. Controversies have developed over class assign- ments and work schedules in rapidly growing institutions, and the need for adequate office space and secretarial assistance has continued to be a concern of faculty members.69 69American Association for Higher Education- National Education Association, Report of Task Force on Faculty Representation andecademic Negotiations, Faculty PartiCipation in Academic GovernancefTWaSBington, D.C.: American Association far Higher Education, 1967), pp. 10- 13. :eTask Force C 3.3.: were due t3 :isipate in the at a feeling ti :sgatives in st. op.- anal and econ szrtance. Fa ;::ior colleges Legisla if "ation activi I; to Brown I l L:‘a‘l‘ees has E l \ c 3‘- ‘ -Eted that the f-D'jeesemplo‘ The Che “3936296. facs PatterJOSe ma Us 39 The Task Force concluded that the main causes of discon- tent were due to the faculty's increased desire to par- ticipate in the formulation of policies affecting them and a feeling that they were losing decision-making pre- rogatives in statewide systems of higher education. Per- sonnel and economic issues were relegated to secondary importance. Faculty discontent was most evident in junior colleges and in new or "emerging" universities.70 Legislative actions have enhanced the development of union activity in colleges and universities. Accord- ing to Brown?1 and McHugh72 the enactment of state statutes authorizing collective bargaining by public employees has encouraged its growth, and Garbarino has stated that these laws have presumed that this kind of employee-employer relationship will develop.73 The characteristics of the institution have influenced faculty interest in unionism. Haehn found 70Ibid., p. 1. 71Ralph S. Brown, Jr., "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education," Michigan Law Review, 67 (Spring, 1969), 1,067. 72William F. McHugh, "Collective Bargaining with Professionals in Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review, No. 1 (1971), 57. 73Joseph W. Garbarino, "Precarious Professors: New Patterns of Representation," Industrial Relations, 10 (February, 1971), 6. .12: in California :iczisn was assoc Startial incrernen insignificant di' 33:55: fcentral leaiership Style grab and qualit The threa :Litant faculty 213:0: Organi 2a \ . “an. 3 ..... land fiscal 93).} e.76 .anfi he. 5“. In \I. Sr ~45“ est in unioz‘. . 't‘saictional st The actiC the growth of caveman noted t W‘Cv“ m-s‘rre‘ba 40 that in California State Colleges faculty support for unionism was associated with the very large colleges, sub- stantial increments in growth and a metropolitan location. No significant differences in support were related to the extent of centralized decisionemaking and administrative leadership style in the institution nor in the rate of growth and quality of the college.74 The threat of repressive legislation against militant faculty members has led some to seek protection 75 in labor organizations. The fear of conservative state, social and fiscal policies has contributed to faculty 76 militance. In private educational institutions, the interest in unions has been stimulated by the expanded jurisdictional standard of the NLRB.77 The actions of governing boards have contributed to the growth of faculty organizations. For example, Lieberman noted that unilateral policy formulation, interpretation and implementation by governing boards 74James O. Haehn, "A Study of Trade Unionism Among State College Professors" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkley, 1969, Dissertation Abstracts, 30 [1970], 4,580A). 75Ralph S. Brown, "Collective Bargaining for the Faculty," Liberal Education, 56 (March, 1970), 75. 76Mayhew, "Faculty Demands," 346. 77 . . Garbarino, "Precarious Professors," 6. fifth lack of a ‘- .317 to an interest :‘ezerioration of 5 ;;-;;;le for decis :5 also led to ti”. Faculty me :5 securing power 553' inacpropriate Lates' rather than inst-ding to May's. sue to changing atamed admini mate to Cope ations faculty gr .3. BrOWn' . 80 35:33: a“ James 5‘3 3.:~.-"d C011 tall 1 E 41 and the lack of a grievance procedure in these areas has led to an interest in collective bargaining.78 The deterioration of faculty-board relationships and a struggle for decision-making power in the institution has also led to the growth of unionism.79 Faculty members have joined unions for the purpose of securing power equal to that held by administrations,80 and inappropriate reactions by administrators have stimu- lated rather than suppressed interest in union activity.81 According to Mayhew, many presidents have not been respon- sive to changing conditions and have continued to rely on antiquated administrative structures that have not been adequate to cope with current problems. In these situ- ations faculty groups have sought greater involvement and power in governing the institution.82 78Myron Lieberman, "Professors, Unite!" Harper's, 243 (October, 1971), 62. 79Brown, "Collective Bargaining for the Faculty," 75. 80James F. Day and William H. Fisher, "The Pro- fessor and Collective Negotiations," School and Society, 95 (April 1, 1967), 227. 81Bertram H. Davis, "Unions and Higher Education: Another View," Educational Record, 49 (Spring, 1968), 143. 82Mayhew, "Faculty Demands," 341. Boyd has 5‘: :3 growth of unioz :efaculty's desi: rernaice. Perhaps the mo of collective authority Cris CEPUS. This Share in power there is a Sen for grabs. . , The Problem ha Pluralism Of C Ctr CaxPUSes a In the absence Purpose! authc Such a Situatf i1'-E>0tent 0r i: collectiVe bai for facilllties or which 599 l to Students ' “l'ersities have 42 Boyd has shared Mayhew's view but contends that the growth of union activity has been due to more than the faculty's desire for power and an expanded role in governance. Perhaps the most fundamental reason for the advent of collective bargaining derives from the general authority crisis which exists in society and on campus. This goes beyond the desire of faculty to share in power. Old traditions no longer hold and there is a sense in which everything seems to be up for grabs. . . . The problem has been made more acute because th pluralism of contemporary society is replicated on our campuses and reflected in a pluralism of goals. In the absence of common goals and a shared sense of purpose, authority is difficult to legitimize. In such a situation old methods are apt to seem either impotent or illicit. When new methods are sought, collective bargaining stands available as an Option for faculties which have never been enfranchised, or which see traditional prerogatives being lost to students, to managers and to politicians.8 The financial problems confronting colleges and universities have also contributed to faculty unionization. There has been a decline in economic activity, inflationary pressures have developed and competition for resources has increased as new social priorities have emerged. Greater public expenditures have been needed to meet the demand for higher education. These factors have con- tributed to budgetary problems; and institutions have often responded by reducing faculty expansion, slowing 83William B. Boyd, "Collective Bargaining in Aca- deme: Causes and Consequences," Liberal Education, 57 (October, 1971), 311. Dr. Boyd is the president of Central Michigan University, one of the first four-year insti- tutions to negotiate a contract with a faculty bargaining unit. grate of sala: :3 loads. Furt' iazisn support 5 :ai;cti:ns of st 5:: additional 1 "..:eatened basic :avel allowanc. Faculty -5 a method to Sci-leagues. CC riser-ted by ‘ Hiring *7 tea. ”Pin-off Eff 33115:}, and SE Eff-get--if One A "de: :9 growth Of 53;; .. o 5". J ‘J‘Stituti 43 the rate of salary increases and requiring greater teach- ing loads. Furthermore, a lessening of federal and foun- dation support for research efforts has resulted in some reductions of staff, graduate programs and in opportunities for additional income.84 Financial difficulties have also threatened basic salaries, tenure, sabbatical leaves and travel allowances.85 Faculty members have seen collective bargaining as a method to attain the benefits received by their colleagues. College and university professors have been influenced by the gains achieved through collective bar- gaining by teachers.86 Wollett claims that "there is a Spin-off effect from the successful experience in ele- mentary and secondary schools. There is also a domino- effect--if one college does it, why not another?"87 A "demonstration effect" has also contributed to the growth of union activity in higher education. When collective bargaining has been seen as effective in a few institutions, faculty at other schools have sought 84 . . Garbarino, "Precarious Professors," 3-4. 85Lieberman, "Professors, Unite!" 62-63. 86Israel Kugler, "The Union Speaks for Itself," Educational Record, 49 (Fall, 1968), 414. 87WOllett, "Status and Trends," 9. as: representati isiifferences i: :s:it'itions, and raising these gag The status 53356 have contril :azicss. In many Egreater than (:1 salaries and incr. tiers to union 1 :5 probationary f‘ iiisecurity has 1 litrest in union Young ins a "Presentminde fisflbStantial 5 Sims and senic 3513:1535 to upwa :5 elitist to re \, as .l 30m 89 t, Bro“ I 90. Lieber 91 Davis, 44 . . 88 union representation. Collective bargaining emphasizes the differences in conditions of employment between institutions, and faculty have viewed it as a means of reducing these gaps and securing similar benefits.89 The status and composition of the faculty labor force have contributed to the interest in union organi- zations. In many fields, the supply of Ph.D. graduates is greater than the demand. This may depress starting salaries and increase the receptivity of younger faculty 90 The rise in the number members to union membership. of probationary faculty members and their interest in job security has been cited as another reason for the interest in unions.91 Young instructors have been characterized by Boyd as "present-minded" in that they desire rapid promotions and substantial salary increases. Departmental pro- cedures and senior professors have been viewed as obstacles to upward mobility and senates as too slow and elitist to respond to their expectations. The 88Boyd, "Collective Bargaining in Academe," 310. 89Brown, "Collective Bargaining for the Faculty," 76. 90Lieberman, "Professors, Unite!" 63. 91Davis, "Unions and Higher Education," 143. 4vatient and frus :211ective bargai: :::i:nal acquiesce Mamion h. mass to the ten faculty in inst 1t 1211's: of the ml: aiiec‘ to Marmion‘ :u‘ans the inf lL faxlty' has thre faculty members . irgaining as a 1 litrator-junior 1?! also conceiv 55! protecting t 35§Ctiating the H. c~= titutimlal de . “A Mat4h .. .““:: ‘ ‘V fi 4348““! Gov.- 45 impatient and frustrated young faculty member may seek collective bargaining as a method for gaining insti- tutional acquiescence to his or her demands.92 Marmion has partially attributed the interest in unions to the tensions which develop between old and new faculty in institutions that have evolved from offering only teacher preparation programs to the expanded cur- riculum of the multi-purpose university.93 Finkin has added to Marmion's analysis stating that in these insti- tutions the influx of "liberal arts oriented junior faculty" has threatened the status of older influential faculty members. The threatened groups may see collective bargaining as a more desirable alternative than an admin- istrator-junior faculty dominated senate. IFaculty members may also conceive of collective bargaining as a method for protecting their prerogatives from students by negotiating the parameters of student participation in institutional decision-making.94 College faculties have recently expanded to include individuals whose socio-economic backgrounds lngoyd, "Collective Bargaining in Academe," 307-08. 93Harry H. Marmion, "Unions and Higher Education," Educational Record, 49 (Winter, 1968), 45. 94Matthew W. Finkin, "Collective Bargaining and University Government," Wisconsin Law Review, No. l (1971), 146-48. :r4 3" Eé'JCive to U 'Faculty liberalf :gizicns since CC 311:9 private se semiary schools Anxiety a :fmicns in higi gregared 'marg. :5 some institut. 5:: research and its have not ye schclars and are ieiChing. UniOn L‘ation, and man is 46 are conducive to a greater receptivity to unionism. "Faculty liberals" have not wished to voice anti-union opinions since collective bargaining has gained acceptance in the private sector and has permeated elementary and secondary schools.95 Anxiety and fear have contributed to the growth of unions in higher education. Anxious, frustrated and unprepared "marginal men" have been created as the mission of some institutions has expanded to include expectations for research and graduate education. These faculty mem- bers have not yet been accepted as colleagues by research scholars and are no longer the peers of those who stress teaching. Unions have been used as an outlet for frus- tration, and many of today's faculty members long for the quiet, real or imaginary, academic world of the past. They are fearful about job security, uncertain about their relationships with students, lonely in the large insti- tution and concerned about their role in the future.96 The Faculty Organizations Other causal factors contributing to the growth of unionism have been the efforts of various organizations. 95Boyd, "Collective Bargaining in Academe," 310. See also McHugh, "Collective Bargaining with Professionals," 57. 96Mayhew, "Faculty Demands," 343-47. :15 Bally effort :iszism and Sti message in CC 27,3 exgandEd t1”. :5 success of 1 Faerica: Eistorically, t3 ation in insti fiese‘mp college ation has been tare and prot .: the sixties, Lnfaculty sale the Associatio: 25.-i311 0! becox iizectives, 98 In 196 47 The early efforts of the AFT aroused faculty interest in unionism and stimulated other groups to seek new members and engage in collective bargaining. The AAUP and NBA have expanded their staffs whose future is determined by the success of their organizations.97 American Association of University Professors.-- Historically, the AAUP has advocated faculty represen- tation in institutional governance and has sought to deve10p college teaching as a profession. The Associ- ation has been concerned primarily with academic freedom, tenure and protecting members against unjust discharge. In the sixties, the group began to take a greater interest in faculty salaries, and debate occurred as to whether the Association should remain as a professional organi- zation or become a pressure group lobbying for economic objectives.98 In 1968 the Association reaffirmed its traditional position of supporting faculty representation in the formulation of educational and professional policies and also advocated participation in decisions affecting 99 economic issues. Historically, collective bargaining 97Ibid., pp. 339-42. 98Strauss, "Professional Occupational Associ- ation," 132. 99"Policy on Representation of Economic Interests," AAUP Bulletin, 54 (June, 1968), 152. ‘-_:5 not been SE rm to adminl aisle with th A new F ::;a:.ization ca gazing might " fruity and ad: exinonic issues :22 delegates t 1:2;on statin- 2:;aining as a asso:iation's g Accordi IESClution ' n l 48 has not been seen as a method for making faculty interests known to administrators and has been considered as incom- patible with the nature of academic institutions. A new position began to emerge in 1969 as the organization cautiously recognized that collective bar- gaining might have a “significant role" in bringing about faculty and administration agreement on academic and economic issues.100 This policy was changed in 1972 when the delegates to the annual convention adopted a reso- lution stating that the AAUP would pursue‘collective bargaining as a major additional way of realizing the association's goals.101 According to Jacobson speakers who supported this resolution, "left no doubt that they regarded collective bargaining as essential to bolster the AAUP's long-standing commitments in higher education, as well as to improve its position of influence compared with the two other major faculty organizations--the NBA and the American Feder- 102 ation of Teachers." Earlier indicators of the AAUP's interest in collective bargaining were the addition of a 100"Policy on Representation of Economic and Pro- fessional Interests," AAUP Bulletin, 55 (December, 1969), 490. 101Jacobson, "AAUP Votes Overwhelmingly to Pursue Bargaining," p. l. 1°21bid., p. 2. :tllective barg. ago-tel office :ertification e The pas hie some indie targaihing. T': :icigation in c‘ itsl‘lding: (1: P.- A..W a a...t8rs and (1‘ ""».‘fi‘ 3"“ “ion 0 dis: 1..) I if.$titutio "‘ (4) the si The A}? .2 van-.0115 eCC 3 [Wm 49 collective bargaining staff, the establishment of regional offices and active campaigning in several certification elections.103 The past statements of the Association may pro- vide some indication of its objectives for collective bargaining. The organization has advocated faculty par- ticipation in decisions affecting a variety of areas, including: (1) the selection of principal academic officers and department chairman; (2) the appointment, promotion, dismissal and tenure of faculty members; (3) institutional, educational and research policies104 and (4) the size and composition of the student body.105 The AAUP has also supported faculty participation in various economic areas: (1) The preparation of the institution's total budget; (2) The apportionment of the budget to fiscal divisions such as salaries, academic programs, tuition, physical plant and grounds; 103Garbarino, "Precarious Professors," 15-16. 104"Economic and Professional Interests," 439- 105"Statement on Government of Colleges and Uni- versities," AAUP Bulletin, 52 (December, 1966), 376. {h Budgetar: subject 1 faculty the educ (H The fund researcl (3 The est salary grievan (6) The se] The Ass Exhkfl load amen '“utY- In e a; teathing is; gaining wt 50 (3) Budgetary decisions affecting the curriculum, subject matter, methods of instruction, research, faculty status and student life as it relates to the educational process; (4) The funding of libraries, laboratories and research projects; (5) The establishment of policies and procedures for salary increases, including methods for resolving grievances; (6) The selection of fringe benefit programs,106 The Association has stated that the appropriate teaching load for undergraduate instruction should be nine hours per week and six hours per week for graduate faculty. In establishing teaching load, consideration should be given to the scope of the courses being taught and class size. The number of new and different courses, research efforts and involvement in activities other than teaching and research should also be factors in determining work load.107 The AAUP has not advocated strikes as a tactic for enforcing their demands on an institution. Strikes 106"The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters, A Report by Committee T," AAUP Bulletin, 57 (June, 1971), 188-90. 107"Statement on Faculty Workload," AAUP Bulletin, 56 (March, 1970), 31-32. 22:9 been viewed "’05 of ac ademl tar. * .e Associa‘ :fairly dismiss . . 10 :eccgnizea. 9 Stack at St. Jo lll verity . America: \- ‘fig- I .a to . nas advocate irrational 1:151 hrs-1331 positi( “ti 938 CORVEn We to Organi 51 have been viewed as appropriate only when the university flagrantly infringes upon academic freedom or the prin- ciples of academic government.108 Censure has been used when the Association believes that professors have been unfairly dismissed or that academic freedom has not been 109 recognized. However, local chapters of the AAUP have struck at St. Johns University110 and at Oakland Uni- versity.111 American Federation of Teachers.--Since 1935 the AFT has advocated collective bargaining for employees of educational institutions. However, it was more a philo- sophical position than an organizational practice. At the 1958 convention, delegates resolved "that a renewal drive to organize college teachers shall be initiated 108"Statement on Faculty Participation in Strikes," AAUP Bulletin, 54 (June, 1968), 157. 109The AAUP's method of censure has been to issue a public statement that unsatisfactory conditions of academic freedom and tenure exist at the censured insti- tutions. In May of 1972 thirty colleges and universities were on the censure list as reported in "List of Censured Colleges," The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 15, 1972, p. 3. 110Ferguson, "Collective Bargaining Colleges Universities," 804. 111"News from the Campuses," The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 27, 1971, p. S. 112 _ Erin'ith' ; c 2.35531". Francis: 1 suite Colleges. :2 Federation 1. elaentary and 5 fat the union 1 Lective bargain; election ViCtOr: illfe-saver fo; 563 the Federa t: :cmunitl’ Co 1fl~ I “"313 in over \- l ‘ ”Amer frsceedin s, 19 Co., Inc. ' 52 112 forthwith"; and by 1960 locals had been established at the San Francisco, San Jose and Long Beach California 113 State Colleges. However, it was not until 1961, when the Federation was elected as the bargaining agent for elementary and secondary school teachers in New York City, that the union began to accurately conceptualize the col- lective bargaining process. Stinett has said of the election victory, "There can be no doubt that this was a life-saver for the national teachers union."114 By 1963 the Federation expanded its organizational efforts 115 to community colleges and in 1966 reported that it had locals in over fifty institutions of higher education.116 112American Federation of Teachers, Convention Proceedin s 1958 (Abridged; New York: The Master Report- ing Co., Inc., 58), p. 89. 113American Federation of Teachers, Convention Pro- ceedin s, 1960 (Abridged; New York: The Master Reporting Co., Inc., 1960), p. 66. For a discussion of the Feder- ation's attempts to organize the California State College System see Martha A. Brown, "Collective Bargaining on the Campus: Professors, Associations and Unions," Labor Law Journal, 21 (March, 1970), 176-79. 114Stinnett, Turmoil in Teaching, p. 56. 115American Federation of Teachers, Convention Pro- ceedin s, 1963 (Abridged; Chicago: B. B. CoIvin Reporting Co., Inc., 1963), Resolution number 55, pp. 97-98. The Federation resolved that community college faculty members should attain "true professional status" in the areas of tenure and faculty determination of policy. A minimum salary range of $8,000 to $12,000 and a maximum teaching load of 12 hours were recommended. 116American Federation of Teachers, Convention Proceedingsy 1966 (Abridged), p. 50. At the 1 :Laited that C395 'stars,' conditj :a:e.' He refer :;:e accrediting ieglored the abl :at the Federa1 lirarians and l Resoluti ll) a condematj its refusal to c lice that accre l3} reaffirmatic fixation and (A :~ feming boa r d5 53 At the 1966 convention, Delegate Israel Kugler claimed that despite the existence of well-paid faculty "stars," conditions for most faculty members were "second- rate." He referred to the AAUP as "slothful," condemned the accrediting associations, opposed loyalty oaths, deplored the abuse of graduate assistants and stated that the Federation would not neglect such staff as librarians and laboratory assistants.117 Resolutions adopted at the convention included: (1) a condemnation of the Middle States Association for its refusal to discredit St. John's University, (2) insis- tance that accreditation teams have a faculty majority, (3) reaffirmation of its support for tuition-free higher education and (4) the separation of community college governing boards from their elementary and secondary 118 school affiliations. A comprehensive student rights resolution was adopted at the 1968 convention.119 The philosophy of the AFT has been similar to that 120 of labor unions in the private sector. The Federation 117Ibid., pp. 52-54. 118Ibid., Resolution numbers 5, 6 and 10, pp. 55- 57. 119American Federation of Teachers, Convention Proceedings, 1968 (Abridged), Resolution number 6, pp. 163-64. 120Brown, "Collective Bargaining in Higher Edu- cation," 1,069. asvieved collec nth their role 1‘ Easier, President teachers at the C affiliate, has 55 Our colleges ccrporate st: The boards 0: the college w. . . , 121 In a Stu n .Alu ._._;d that the L‘. :iELes in higher salaries and act decisions the {3} academic fr ‘ grtlfessor as an Recentlj thc somewhat S “Cti‘les o f t “254$ Le r Educ § 1 54 has viewed collective bargaining by faculty as compatible with their role in educational institutions. Israel Kugler, President of the United Federation of College Teachers at the City University of New York, an AFT affiliate, has said: Our colleges and universities are dominated by the corporate structure so typical of American business. The boards of trustees like the boards of directors; the college presidents and deans like the managers. In a study of the AFT from 1916 to 1966, Lester found that the union has historically supported such prin- ciples in higher education as: (1) higher faculty salaries and economic benefits, (2) greater participation in decisions that affect them personally and professionally, (3) academic freedom and (4) emphasis on the status of the professor as an employee.122 Recently the goals of the Federation have come into somewhat sharper focus. Kugler has stated the objectives of the organization as: (1) Comprehensive academic freedom for students and faculty; (2) A published salary schedule ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 to be attained by all tenured faculty in regular annual increments; 121American Federation of Teachers, 1966, p. 51. 122Lester, "American Federation of Teachers in Higher Education," 2,930A. (”Promotior mined by (4) Pets"nnej availabl‘ as) A Wm under?” students sition a six seme (6} Adequate researc During q ....ver51ty of N6 n". ' moving posit' 55 (3) Promotion for meritorious performance as deter- mined by departmental faculty; (4) Personnel files and evaluation reports should be available for faculty review and comment; (5) A maximum workload of nine semester hours for undergraduate instructors with no more than 100 students per semester and fewer in English compo- sition and speech courses; a maximum workload of six semester hours for graduate faculty; (6) Adequate secretarial support, office space and research facilities.123 During the 1970 election campaign at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the AFT supported the following positions: (1) staff-elected chairman and advice and consent in the selection of the chancellor, president and deans; (2) granting tenure after a pro- bationary period of one to four years and (3) due process and just cause in cases of discipline, dismissal, non- renewal of a contract and salary reduction.124 The AFT was the first organization to advocate the use of strikes to settle impasses. And, by 1958 the '123Kugler, "Union Speaks for Itself," 417. 124Malcolm G. Scully and William A. Sievert, "Col- lective Bargaining Gains Converts Among Teachers; 3 National Organizations Vie to Represent Faculties," The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 10, 1971, p. 6. Federation was ur. Ezrpublic employ :esslution was ad oi the delegates assistance for t: National nation the NE. in: the educatio ""1". .fv..aI‘.C€ of th :sachers. AS re sidered the for: :2 joint respor fixation. Legi gazing as a nee :2 test {its Wen ~.- V ‘ age: _ Ed Channe it}: . 1%“ with th teachers 56 Federation was urging the repeal of no-strike legislation 125 At the 1963 Convention a for public employees. resolution was adopted supporting the use of strikes, and the delegates requested that the AFL-CIO provide assistance for this activity.126 National Education Association.--Since its inception the NEA has conceived of itself as the spokesman for the education profession and has stressed the importance of the professional responsibilities of teachers. As recently as 1961, the organization con- sidered the formulation of educational policies to be the joint responsibility of its members and boards of education. Legislation was preferred to collective bar- gaining as a means for changing the status of teachers, and members were to participate "through democratically selected channels" in decisions affecting salaries and 127 Despite this policy the NEA did working conditions. compete with the AFT for the right to represent New York City teachers in the 1961 representation election. 125Stinnett, Turmoil in Teaching, pp. 96-97. 126American Federation of Teachers, 1963, Reso- lution number 79, pp. 177-78. 127National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings, 1961 (washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1961), pp. 216-17. The Assoc :35: when the del :izei the need it I ';::~cedures shou‘fi 26:06. . . to : Trough-Lit the c. effsrts to recru s: ikes were cal The off i Iiergo change. 155131 guideline 3f written agre aims. includ' listed for teach Asscc' ' lation' s p, wk 1' 57 The Association began to modify its position in 1962 when the delegates to the annual convention recog- nized the need for professional negotiations stating that "procedures should be established which provide an orderly method . . . to reach satisfactory agreements."128 Throughout the country the organization intensified its efforts to recruit members, "professional holidays" or strikes were called and written agreements were negotiated. The official policies of the NEA continued to undergo change. During the early 1960's the organization issued guidelines for negotiations,129 130 urged the adoption of written agreements and insisted that grievance pro- cedures, including an appeal to a third party, be estab- 131 At the 1968 convention the lished for teachers. Association's position on professional negotiations, which has remained unchanged, was adopted: 128National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings! 1962 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,_1962), Resolution number 18, p. 397. 129National Education Association, Guidelines for Professional Negotiations (Washington, D.C.: *National Education Association,71963). 130National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings, 1964 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1964), Resolution number 15, p. 446. 131National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedingsi 1966 (Washington, D.C.: NatiofiEI—Education Association, 1966), Resolution number 66-15, p. 473. , . . local a establish wri agreements 5“: faith betweer representati'v. maintain, prc for professifl concern, me sibility.132 ‘ ‘. Tee convention d: finding and bind . l centres. 33 Only rec rereasing its 0 entries. The 3353} existed f is. and inCludec' 323' But Philc 58 . . . local associations and school boards must establish written professional agreements. Such agreements shall provide for negotiation in good faith between associations and school boards, through representatives of their choosing, to establish, maintain, protect, and improve terms and conditions for professional service and other matters of mutual concern, including a provision for financial respon- sibility.132 The convention delegates also supported mediation, fact- finding and binding arbitration in grievance pro- cedures.133 Only recently has the NEA become interested in increasing its organizational efforts in colleges and uni- versities. The American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) existed for several years as an affiliate of the NEA and included administrators as well as faculty mem- bers. But philosophical difference regarding the role of collective bargaining in colleges and universities developed between the two organizations in 1968-69.134 The affiliation was officially severed by the NEA's executive committee in 1971.135 132National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings, 1968 (washington, D.C.: National Education Association,l§6§), Resolution number 68-17, p. 526. 1331bid. 134"NEA woos and Wins Profs," Phi Delta Kappan, 53 (December, 1971), 216. 135National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedinggi 1971 (Washington, D.C.: NationaI'Education Association,1§7I), p. 607. and service- :crganizing tw: stablislcnent of :zity and Junio ccn'ention the d Lie Association' extension of pro £5th members \ The Nun alleges and uni Rational Societ} :f Colleges and eatahlished. T . :ted to Coor 2:39 °f the n; ”a. 59 During 1965 and 1966 the NEA expanded its recruit- ment and services in higher education.136 A major thrust in organizing two-year institutions came in 1967 with the establishment of the National Faculty Association of Com- 137 At the 1968 munity and Junior Colleges (NFA-CJC). convention the delegates adopted for the first time in the Association's history a resolution urging the extension of professional negotiations to include faculty members in higher education.138 The NEA's commitment to organizing individuals in colleges and universities intensified in 1969 when the National Society of Professors (NSP) and the Association of Colleges and University Administrators (CUA) were established. The Higher Education Division (NHEA) was created to coordinate the efforts of the two groups and those of the NFA-CJC. These organizations were to meet "the personal and professional needs" of their members.139 136National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedin s, 1965 (washington, D.C.: National Education Association, ), pp. 254, 258; NBA, 1966, p. 301. 137National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedingsg_l967 (washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1967), Resolution number 67- -29, p. 504. 138National Education Association, 1968, Resolution number 68-17, p. 526. 139National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedi_gs 1969 (washington, D. C. National Education Association, 1969), p. 94. In "NEA Reorganization," The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 22,1972, p. 5, it_ was these 'needs' hav goals of the Assc The NBA h salaries for face 35,140 and the :as stressed that :groving instru. Prior to as an unprofessi 1'3 solution has a sanctions "as a :2:an POlici 5::83t on the W :sei SEVEIal kit isrLe DlVlsiOr é’vpa 'Lette it“ re ' .s‘ Sldent . I p. 5 1 H A N 60 These "needs" have been more clearly defined in the goals of the Association. The NEA has urged "substantial increases" in salaries for faculty members in colleges and universi- 140 ties, and the Association's Higher Education Division has stressed that its contracts reflect their interest in improving instruction and professional growth.141 Prior to 1962 the Association considered strikes as an unprofessional activity. At the 1962 convention, a resolution was adopted advocating the use of professional sanctions "as a means for preventing unethical or arbitrary policies or practices that have a deleterious 142 The NEA has effect on the welfare of the schools." used several kinds of sanctions such as statements of censure, withdrawal of placement services and requests reported that the Higher Education Division would be part of the Division of Affiliate Services in the future. See also a "Letter to the Editor" from Donald E. Morrison, NEA President in The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 22, 1972, p. 5. 140National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings, 1970 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1970), Resolution number C22, p. 745. 141NEA Division of Higher Education, "Collective Bargaining on the College Campus," Today's Education, 60 (December, 1971), 45. 142National Education Association, 1962, Resolution number 19, p. 398. first teachers 110* 531301.1‘n it it n: to assign St‘ Embers have tLidays' or str atzon's current when the organiz iizfdraval of se e-greezent had it lation for publ :esolution . l 4 6 Orcani: its largest or! n 1. .352 . aPproxin “955‘ Educatj $1300 “Lather, 1 43L1 3:: TE . aCflers , '71:. v ‘ “le 1' 5\ 61 that teachers not accept employment at a sanctioned school.143 It has also urged colleges and universities not to assign student teachers to a sanctioned school.144 NEA members have also been involved in "professional 145 But the essence of the Associ- holidays" or strikes. ation's current policy on strikes was adopted in 1968 when the organization stated that it would support the withdrawal of services after all efforts to reach an agreement had failed. The repeal of no-strike legis- lation for public employees was also encouraged in this resolution.146 Organizational Prospects.--Current1y the AAUP is the largest organization with 91,000 members. In May of 1972, approximately 40,000 persons belonged to the NEA's Higher Education Division and the AFT had an estimated 15,000 members.147 The immediate success of these groups 143Lieberman and Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers, pp. 303-04. 144National Education Association, 1969, Resolution number 48, p. 579. 145Lieberman and Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers, p. 296. 146National Education Association, 1968, Resolution 147Robert L. Jacobson, "Collective Bargaining Is Expected to Get Formal Endorsement of Professors' Associ- ation," The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 1, 1972, PP- 1: 5- geniarging the: 1': their comitm 2:2 "’3 took the EA responded to :rgezizational e seer. increasing its AAUP has bee 148 professors . The futt | 55?“ Upon the. fessors, Garba ISt FIEStlgiOU “a h . . m the 10" sta* multiES in h 39“ identifie organizationlf e}- be restri maelsl \ quL la 9C e;- :_ 1 S . '33:: S 62 in enlarging their membership may have been partially due to their commitment to collective bargaining. Although the AFT took the initiative in unionizing educators, the NEA responded to the challenge by intensifying its organizational efforts. While the AFT and NEA have been increasing their membership in higher education, the AAUP has been enrolling a declining proportion of professors.148 The future success of these competing groups may depend upon their image among college and university pro- fessors. Garbarino has characterized the AAUP as the most prestigious and the AFT as the most militant of the organizations. The growth of the NEA may be limited by the low status of education as a discipline among 149 faculties in higher education. The Association has been identified as an elementary and secondary school 150 organization and the efforts of both the NBA and AFT may be restricted if they become labeled as blue-collar groups.151 148 o u ' II Lieberman, Professors, Unite! 63-64. 149Garbarino, "Precarious Professors," lS-l7. 150 Scully and Sievert, "Collective Bargaining Gains Converts," p. 6. 151M. Brown, "Collective Bargaining Campus: Pro- fessors, Associations and Unions," 176, 181. The APT 1' xLitical causes rims in the pr _ faculty merbers. rpm-labor urt faculty recruite 22+: been former A weakn . zot accepting nc 3I€af.ization . ‘41?- State Unive can of those E Fibership, T1 tase of member :Z‘aCademic E 51an 154 The 1 13.-E 1;: ' “A haVe :s.‘ ‘~104 I n 5 adve 2:1 H \v issue: 63 The AFT has often been involved in radical political causes on large campuses, and its link with unions in the private sector may not appeal to some 152 However, the AFT may be successful faculty members. in pro-labor urban areas and in community colleges where faculty recruited from elementary and secondary schools have been former Federation members.153 A weakness of the AAUP has been its philosophy of not accepting non-academic employees as members of the organization. In the election among the three groups at the State University of New York, approximately 30 per cent of those eligible to vote were ineligible for AAUP membership. The NBA and AFT have developed a broader base of membership in their bargaining units by including non-academic personnel, whereas the AAUP has been some- what more restrictive by tending to admit only academic staff.154 The financial resources and vast organization of the NEA have contributed to its strength. The Feder- ation's advantages have been its concern with such prag- matic issues as workloads and hiring procedures and the 152Garbarino, "Precarious Professors," l6. 153Lieberman, "Professors, Unite!" 63-64o 154Scully and Sievert, "Collective Bargaining Gains Converts," p. 6. gtential for supp aiiition, the stat LEA have been stro The strugg at s of higher cf labor union rhe .eaaers of the AFT €305 gray lady” an iiat it has more e :cre aggressive ir sc-zetires vacillat .157 AA. Despite :eprograms of t? .eer. almost identi '4‘ these two grc \ 155 Garbar; 156” NBA W 157 S COHVerts £37 153 WOllet. .H M ._ 3 ":500, fig: ‘ 64 potential for support from other labor unions.155 In addition, the state and local affiliates of the AFT and NBA have been stronger than those of the AAUP.156 The struggle to organize faculty members in insti- tutions of higher education has resulted in an exchange of labor union rhetoric among the competing groups. Leaders of the AFT have referred to the AAUP as "the good gray lady" and as "schizophrenic." The NEA claims that it has more experience than the AFT and has been more aggressive in protecting faculty rights than "the sometimes vacillating, inevitably slow approach of the AAUP."157 Despite these exchanges, WOllett claims that the programs of the AFT and NBA in higher education have 158 been almost identical, and Lieberman has predicted that these two groups will eventually merge.159 155Garbarino, "Precarious Professors," 16-17. 156"NEA W005 and Wins Profs," 216. 157Scully and Sievert, "Collective Bargaining Gains Converts," p. 6. 158Wollett, "Status and Trends," 7. 159Myron Lieberman, "The Union Merger Movement-- Will 3,500,000 Teachers Put It All Together?" Saturday Review, 55 (June 24, 1972), 50-56. ‘urrent Status of Wang During the iteducational ins aisecondary sch< Levels of educatic :ation, faculty In first to organize 1.2;. Gianopulc Pcri Comunity C: $1.31ng of CO 1 cclleges .160 In tseuty- four C Om legatiated agree is: institutio. «arms, Massa in; “on and Wise On May 65 Current Status of Collective Bargaining During the early sixties, collective bargaining in educational institutions first emerged in elementary and secondary schools and since then has penetrated all levels of education. In institutions of higher edu- cation, faculty members in community colleges were the first to organize for the purpose of collective bargain- ing. Gianopulos views the 1966 negotiations at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Michigan, as the beginning of collective bargaining in public community colleges.160 In Michigan, contracts have been signed in twenty-four community colleges; and faculty groups have negotiated agreements in twenty-three of New York's two- year institutions. Contracts have also been signed in Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wash- ington and Wisconsin.161 On May 23, 1972, it was reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education that the NEA has negotiated contracts 160John W. Gianopulos, "Beyond the Bread and Butter Issues," Junior College Journal, 42 (March, 1972), 18. For a discussion of unIOn efforts to organize Michi- gan community colleges and the outcomes of collective bar- gaining in those institutions see Larry M. Buys, "Col- lective Bargaining in Michigan Community Colleges," The Journal of the Colle e and University Personnel Associ- ation, 21 (May, 1970;, 33-59} 161Wollett, "Status and Trends," 3. 1:153 community ' 2.;1 by the AAUP "as been selected :stitutions than Unionizat :e-iers in collec_ :‘evelopments. Ce itin'ersity of Nex izeffect as of 1 atsd the agreeme: yersonnel were c 372, the member E199 into one o mam A8 of J a five contracts 1' littly 7'320 em} imiuded about . fétult Y members 5:: h M _ i3, - A -'~ 23. 00° 5 66 in 103 community colleges as compared with 42 by the AFT and l by the AAUP.162 As indicated in Table l, the NEA has been selected as the bargaining agent in more two-year institutions than the AFT, AAUP or independent groups. Unionization and collective bargaining by faculty members in colleges and universities have been very recent developments. Central Michigan University and the City University of New York (CUNY) had a three-year contract in effect as of September, 1969. At CUNY the NEA negoti- ated the agreement for full-time employees and part-time personnel were covered by an AFT contract. On April 14, 1972, the members of these two bargaining units voted to merge into one organization to negotiate the next con- tract.163 As of January 31, 1971, the NEA had negotiated five contracts in four-year universities covering approxi- mately 7,320 employees. AFT contracts in three schools included about 7,320 persons, and an estimated 3,625 faculty members were represented in four universities by 162"NEA Reorganization," p. 5. 163M. A. Farber, "City U's Merged Union Set to Act for 15,000 on Staff," New York Times, April 16, 1972, p. 20. «if? lo'-Bargaining J tate :slorado Illinois Kansas .‘eLn ."aryland .‘assachusetts lzrnesota lichigan Hes Jersey Sea York Pennsylvania Foods Island lashington D .C . Hashington izsconsin Total \ aIncludes The Minn 51:3:teen campuses SWee: The Chrc Em 67 TABLE 1.--Bargaining agents in community colleges by state and faculty organization--May, 1972. Faculty Organization State AAUP AFT NEA IND. Total Colorado 1 1 Illinois 1 16a 3 20 Kansas 6 6 Maine 1 1 Maryland 1 1 Massachusetts 1 2 3 Minnesota lb 1 Michigan 4 l7 5 26 New Jersey 2 10 12 New York 7 18 l 26 Pennsylvania 3 3 6 Rhode Island 1 l washington D.C. 1 ~ 1 Washington 3 17 20 Wisconsin 4 7 l 12 Total 1 42 86 8 137 aIncludes seven Chicago City Community Colleges. bThe Minnesota State Junior College system has eighteen campuses. Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 1, 164 “" Sin :2 AMP. nine AFT at 805 As indica already been no“ forthcoming at t‘: EnigmiUnivers: Negotiat: :2” tinker educat the Polytechnic cf Rhode Island. 53! faculty menb 7€ISity (C. w. p kstitute: LOWel \ ’ 36 164Jack: 16 ‘“ 5"c0n. :7" Setup Is A ’ " . g: ..E LhI‘Onlcle O: 166 36 Jack 167 .3‘ MiCh u 20, 1% 168 68 the AAUP.164 Since then a contract has been negotiated by the AFT at Boston State College (Table 2).165 As indicated in Table 3, bargaining agents have already been named in several schools and elections are forthcoming at the University of Hawaii,166 Eastern 167 168 Michigan University and Michigan State University. Negotiations have begun at several institutions of higher education. The AAUP has started bargaining at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and the University of Rhode Island. The AFT has commenced negotiations 'for faculty members at Bryant College, Long Island Uni- versity (C. W. Post Center and Brooklyn Center), Pratt Institute, Lowell State College, westfield State Uni- versity and the University of Guam. Fitchburg State 164Jackson, "Report Ad Hoc University Committee," p. 36. 165"Contract Specifying College's Entire Govern- ing Setup Is Agreed to by Faculty Union at Boston State," The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 3, 1972, p. 1. 166Jackson, "Report Ad Hoc University Committee," p. 36. 167Michigan State University - News Bulletin: April 20, 1§7§. p- 3- 168Michigan State University - News Bulletin, June 8, 1972, p. 3. InfiwSIngle Union Voted," p. 5, it was reported on July 3, 1972, that the NLRB will rule on a disputed election at Seattle University. 322 t -.. . . -. xuos omMNHOO oucom :oLur: utIl\II\Il\Illl| H5004 wmw~m dxnhdd Hashim: inn-..:.“Ud ~ hvrlv EIL- lfi> 1‘ 4.2% ‘49- IV h... u unnul a. i. I‘lsrdfls i .G-hnvvJ.a I. I m.‘ .au..~.~<.~. 69 .kbnmfl,.mowm«o mewucflum ucmficuo>ou “.U.Q .coumcflsmmzv ohmalmmma wNuouomHfla coauMUSpm .cowumoopm mo moammo .oummaoz one .cowumospm .nuammm mo ucosuummmo ..m.D .H .m .man .m Hands .GOwumosUm nonmwm mo oaowcouno one A.po£mmumomeflzv .mm .m .mhma .Hm mumscmn .cmmfinoflz .mcwmcmq ummm .hufimum>flco oumum savanna: =.mcficwmmumm o>wuoma IHOU co mouuHEEou muwmum>flca 00m 64 may mo uuomomg ..Hm no .comxoob uuonuom ”moousom acumemm com sea samemom manna: hangoumz .m.a mumum oma aha mnmanonmfl suflmum> IHCD muuomsnommmmz cumummonusom namecmmmeaH omm mama mpaauonma suflmum>flcs m.:nos .um mumum ooo.ma 4oz semanaema snow 3oz mo sufimumswca mumum wumum oom.~ oped msmauonma suflmumsfics muomusm mumom new ones mnmanahma suamumsflco ecmemo namecmmmecH com maaa semananmfl smoaoc Inooa mo GOfiUSpHumcH xuow 3oz mumum oom.~ «m2 mnmfluosma mommaaoo mumum smmums 382 «m2 «emananma uumuucoo cam mumum com «m2 Humanoema uomuuaoo ems muHmH0>HcD cmmwnoflz Houucmo ooo.h 9mm «smanmmma «analysed swoon ooo.m «m2 memaummaa msflunaasm xuow Bmz mo muwmuo>wca Muflu mumum In sum msmaumnma mmmaaoo oumum coumom vac: cwmmumm cosponaammd uomuvcoo .Nnma .HwnmdllmowUfimuo>wcd one mmmoaaoo mum>wnm paw owanam cw muomuucooll.m mamde I a benzcaiael IZZLilll-a Illcl . . . uh< u; Uvflaacu IaaGIDZLQIIQI @39443U auIam Ezacm e?:-OU Oucum aatlté 03°-CU Guflum Th3££bu‘& UFO—«CU .ueuw COHICG EIJU no huqlhl>utb EEJU Ihtifl~=3 uO Xeqlh=>wcb ELEIQ~UQ '1'. e:i—W»..:€U€lrw:.— $31- 3 .I 43-h“ .5: UZN< A I Illil .' “lent...— clayflflMWh-d )3~.-.:Ql.t nus-sum... .‘xi. .).1~..,l51...I-|)...2 .1... I53... no... 3.15.5: ..:I L. :2... ..c l...l}l 3......(2....t..w ‘.|.o ..~.I..~.o.\iy| 7() .mhoa .n hash I ahma .H huusnnn .cofiuuoooa nonuwm no «Howconnu one "mousom Amucuu lawman mcwnououv sandpMZaIcwmcoo laws mo xuwmuw>flca coucouum mo auwmuo>aca Hoonom 304 >uwmuo>wca Edzpuom Sounxm omoaaoo oumum caco>aawccom muwuuo>wca ouaum cucunocno» Aszom. xuo» 302 «o xuwnuo>wca macaw Asuasouu canu-aasu «>236. xuo» 3oz no huwwum>aca huwu omoaaou nusoecot Edumwm omoaaou ououm aouuob 302 nuance can uu< no Hoonom coaxed ouuaaoo unuanu muons wouaaoo vacuum and no omoHHou «woo: aaopoud ocwunz pancake: .m.: ouauauucu uuoum Annoucoo anon .3 .0 can asaxooumo auwmuo>wcs vacuum 0:04 lsuasoou osauuuuuo “wzaoe xuou 302 no huwuuo>wca huwu 05...: 0005— m0 >uwmu0>wca mmoaaoo oceanua suwnuoswca a.:zon .um shdxooum mo ouzuwumcn cacaoouhaom amoHocnooa uo ouauwumcu xuor 302 uuoaaou mcwazbo ommaaoo chum huwmuo>wco «nuaond huuuwucon can ocwo taco: uo movaaou humuon 302 >uwmu0>wca auomusm caucooufiz ecmdam moose eacc>axnccom Owco xuo» 302 ammuon 302 Eoumxm movaaou ounum oxmuunoz mxuounoz «moaaou xoaao> 3o2auam moon uamsm wo owmaaou uwouuoa Aazov huwmu0> muwmu0>wc3 mucum mazes swan cmmwcowx Hmuucuu auwmu0>wca occaxuo savanna: omoaaoo ouuum uouuoouo: oooadoo macaw caeauumoz auwuuo>wca uuuon uncommon: cuouuoonuaom ant uo mouaaoo muuousnoouuaz omuaaou ouuum Baden umuHHOU ououm auozoq wmoaaou ouaum muonnuuwm vocaaou ououm cannon muuomsnoummuz Esau mo huwauo>fica Esau ouuauaoo mo huauuo>wc= ouuzuaoo acoucoooch «a: Bad AD<< ouuum «caduauucuouo auaooum .~ha~ .aanblsooauuuuo>ucs use unmeaaou ouc>wum can ouanso :« avenue acacwomuumnn.m Nancy 71 College and Salem State College have undertaken bar- gaining with the NEA.169 However, not all faculty members have embraced collective bargaining as evidenced by the rejection of bargaining agents at Fordham University, Northern Michigan University, Pace College, the University of Detroit and Manhattan College.170 The contracts that have been negotiated in col- leges and universities have covered a wide range of issues. According to Moskow the scope of negotiations has been determined by (1) the policies of the bargaining agent, (2) the administrative organization of the insti- tution, (3) the prior involvement of faculty members in decision-making and (4) the extent of individual bargain- ing. .Moskow has concluded that the scope of negotiations will vary between institutions because of the differences among two-year, four-year, public, private, single-campus and multi-campus schools.171 Despite the range of specific issues that have been negotiated, wollett has stated that faculty members 169 p. 36. Jackson, "Report Ad Hoc University Committee," 17oIbid.; The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan- uary l, 1971 to May 22, I972. 171Michael H. Moskow, "The Scope of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review, lave been concer: :eiures for facu Policies, (3) wo of personnel p01 lei-v buciset) a (6.9-. federal 1 {5399 0f subjec+ what are manage] to: What are ap been resched . l The eme meat-1°“ has I Stress“ the in Men the apl the union as 11 “in. "7‘2 has Clair ifath .5“ 91‘ the I! t altEv .ed as a \ 172 W01 72 have been concerned with five general areas: (1) pro- cedures for faculty representation, (2) educational policies, (3) working conditions and the administration of personnel policies, (4) aggregate economic issues (e.g., budget) and (5) public issues and the institution 72 While a broad (e.g., federal funding for research).1 range of subjects has been negotiated, the questions of what are management rights and thus non-negotiable items and what are appropriate items for bargaining have not been resolved.173 The emergence of collective bargaining in higher education has raised several other issues. Bucklew has stressed the importance of maintaining a distinction between the appropriate role of the faculty and that of the union as it relates to academic personnel decisions.174 Mintz has claimed that an unanswered question has been whether the "traditional role" of the faculty will be 175 altered as a result of collective bargaining. Finkin 172Wollett, "Status and Trends," 13-14. 173McHugh, "Collective Bargaining with Pro- fessionals," 67-70. 174Neil S. Bucklew, "Administering a Faculty Agree- ment," The Journal of the Colle e and UniversityPersonnel Association, 22 (May, I571}, 33-50. 175Bernard Mintz, ”The CUNY Experience," Wiscon- sin Law Review, No. l (1971), 123. las raised the 1 bill continue to iecisions former jects for negoti Wollett of faculty senat Questions: 1. Will tn, fession. the Sch. individ 2- Will th of unif 3° Will a Peer 8‘ Philos( °f “hf, an arb will cw Cedure 3c. 176 . ' 177 W01 73 has raised the issues of whether faculty-elected senates will continue to function after unionization or whether decisions formerly made by these groups will become sub- jects for negotiations. 176 Wbllett has shared Finkin's concern for the future of faculty senates and has raised several additional questions: 1. Will the favorable salary and workload for pro- fessional faculty be reduced, thus diminishing the school's ability to attract and retain such individuals? Will the merit principle be replaced by a system of uniform rewards, thus reducing an opportunity to recognize excellence? Will a conflict emerge between the concept of peer evaluation as now practiced and a union philosophy that individuals should have claims of unfair treatment subject to the decision of an arbitrator? Will collective bargaining establish rigid pro- cedures that limit the institution's flexibility in meeting changing needs and demands?177 176Finkin, "Collective Bargaining and University Government," 146. l77W’ollett, "Status and Trends," 18-23. Sands View ices not result in stantial infringe academic freedom . stated that the e :51: limit other f the faculty membe uterests and gr Other is 3‘9 bargaining u Emgenent? Wha tutti-campus in teria-13w for whether LL ‘ 74 Sands views a need for contract language which does not result in unanticipated consequences and the potential infringement of exclusive representation on 178 academic freedom as areas of concern. Brown has stated that the existence of an exclusive representative may limit other forms of faculty governance and reduce the faculty members' opportunity to pursue individual interests and grievances independent of the union.179 Other issues have focused on the composition of the bargaining unit. Who are faculty members? Who is management? What is the appropriate bargaining unit in 180 multi-campus institutions? Similar questions have been raised for private educational institutions.181 Whether collective bargaining can be effective in the absence of the right to strike has been debated.182 178Dallas C. Sands, "The Role of Collective Bar- gaining in Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review, No. l (1971), 176. 179Brown, "Collective Bargaining in Higher Edu- cation," 1,066-67. 180Ibid.: See also McHugh, "Collective Bargaining with Professionals in Higher Education," 73-84. 181Livingston and Christensen, "State and Federal Regulation," 97-99. 182For a summary of the debate on the right of public employees to strike see Moskow, Loewenberg and Koziara, Collective Bar ainin in Public Emplo ent, PP. 233-35. See 5190 Sands, ilRolein Higher Eggzafion," ,, role that C< nan supportive 11'. issue. Collect :ies has not be been a major gr 3.1.. maintenance office personne Student a role in colle 3550Ciation am \ 18 3 . 75 The role that collective bargaining can and should take when supportive statutes are non-existent has also been an issue.183 Collective bargaining in colleges and universi- ties has not been limited to faculty members. There has been a major growth in union membership among service and maintenance employees, and other groups such as office personnel and security forces have also union- ized.184 Student groups have become interested in assuming 185 a role in collective bargaining. The National Student Association and the Association of Student Governments 183Livingston and Christensen, "State and Federal Regulation," 102-03; Thomas R. Wildman, "The Legislation Necessary to Effectively Govern Collective Bargaining in Public Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review, No. l (1971), 277-80. 184Lee A. Belcher, Hugh P. Avery, and Oscar S. Smith, Labor Relations in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: College and University Personnel Association, 1971), p. 4. For a survey report on union activity among non- academic personnel see TenBoer, "Extent and Impact," 43-68. 185For a discussion on student interest in col- lective bargaining see James R. Appleton, "Collective Bar- gaining in Higher Education with Emphasis on the Impact of Bargaining on Students and Student Affairs Personnel," Background paper, National Association of Student Person- nel Administrators Annual Meeting, 1972, pp. 15-16. (Mim- eographed.); See also Daniel R. Coleman, "The Evolution of Collective Bargaining as It Relates to Higher Education in America," The Journal of the College and Universigy Person- nel Associatian, 23 (May, 1972), 9410—and William F. McHugh, I'CoIIective Bargaining and the College Student," The Journal of Higher Education, 42 (March, 1971), 175- 1851 save indicated an ir 25 participating in The Teachin: a: the University 0 1573 this group wen nitrersity was negc ation has recently issues of class-5i 331 security .188 Fob; ...., “gan have alsc been successful .11 76 have indicated an interest in merging for the purpose of participating in collective bargaining 186 The Teaching Assistants Association has existed at the University of Wisconsin since 1966. In March of 1970 this group went on strike and a contract with the 187 university was negotiated shortly after. The Associ- ation has recently threatened strike action over the issues of class—size limits, day-care facilities and 188 job security. Graduate students at the University of Michigan have also attempted to organize but have not been successful.189 186William A. Sievert, "Associations Representing 800 Campus Governments Plan to Merge and Develop a National Student Union," The Chronicle of Higher Edu- cation, August 30, 1971, pp. 1, 3} 187Nathan P. Feinsinger and Eleanore J. Roe, "The University of Wisconsin, Madison Campus--TAA Dispute of 1969-70: A Case Study," Wisconsin Law Review, No. 1 (1971), 228-74. 188"From the Campuses," The Chronicle of Higher Education," March 20, 1972, p. 3. 189"Interns Ruled Ineligible to Bargain with Uni- versity,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 7, 1972, p. 9. For evidence Of’student union activity in other institutions see Sievert and weidlein, "Beneath the Surface Calm What?" pp. 3, 6. Liebermanlg sz'nents may eventuai process. O'Connor h asetployees under t iris entitled to the versity.192 The growth c paralleled by the dc :stors and other pul Earned by elementar‘ airinistrators and iigher education. fibers in four-yea here Q gnel‘ally COHC 77 Lieberman190 and McHugh191 have predicted that students may eventually become involved in the bargaining process. O'Connor has argued that students can be viewed as employees under the National Labor Relations Act and thus entitled to the right to bargain with the uni- versity.192 Summary The growth of unionism in the private sector was paralleled by the development of organizations for edu- cators and other public employees. The AFT and NBA were formed by elementary and secondary school teachers and administrators and by educators from institutions of higher education. The AAUP was exclusively for faculty members in four-year institutions. These organizations were generally concerned about the professional interests of their members, and their conceptualization of unionism and collective bargaining was different from those of their counterparts in private employment. 190Lieberman, "Professors, Unite!" 70. 191McHugh, "Collective Bargaining College Stu- dent," 175, 185. 192David F. P. O'Connor, "Student Employees and Collective Bargaining Under the National Labor Relations Act: An Alternative to Violence on American College Campuses," George Washington Law Review, 38 (July, 1970), 1,042-50. 78 Before 1960, educators seldom used collective bargaining as a method for expressing their professional and economic interests to administrators. The development of collective bargaining was restricted by the philOSOphy of the organizations, the lack of supportive statutes, judicial decisions and the refusal of the NLRB to actively assert its jurisdiction in private colleges and universi- ties. However, during the 1960's a number of pressures contributed to the passage of statutes in several states permitting employees in the public sector to engage in collective bargaining. The NLRB also expanded in juris- diction to cover most employees in private educational institutions. Since the early 1960's elementary and secondary school teachers have turned en mass to union organi- zations. The AFT had advocated collective bargaining for teachers for several years, but it was not until the 1960's that the Federation began to operationalize the concept. The NEA also changed its philosophy about col- lective bargaining in the 1960's. Both groups now actively seek recognition as the bargaining agent for faculty members in two- and four—year institutions of higher education. By 1972 the AAUP adopted a policy in support of collective bargaining in colleges and uni- versities. 79 Recently there has been a steadily increasing interest in collective bargaining among faculty members in colleges and universities. A variety of economic, professional and personal concerns, caused by factors internal and external to the institutions, has con- tributed to the growth of unionism in higher education. Among the more frequently mentioned causes have been: (1) enabling legislation, (2) the faculty's desire to participate in decisions covering a wide range of issues, (3) external economic pressures, (4) faculty concern over salaries and other economic issues, (5) working conditions, (6) the composition of the faculty work force, (7) the perceived success of collective bargaining in other sectors of employment and in other educational insti- tutions, (8) the efforts of faculty organizations and (9) a generalized feeling among faculty members of frus- tration, anxiety and concern over the role of higher edu- cation and their place in it. Some of these factors first affected community college faculty who, since the mid-1960's, have increas- ingly sought unions to represent them. Collective bar- gaining has also gained acceptance from some faculty mem- bers in colleges and universities. And while the number of contracts that have been negotiated has been small, the interest in collective bargaining has slowly but steadily been increasing. 80 A number of questions have been raised by the entrance of collective bargaining into academe. These include: (1) What is the apprOpriate bargaining unit? (2) What are negotiable issues, and what are management rights? (3) Will traditional faculty governance mecha- nisms be affected by collective bargaining? (4) What form can collective bargaining take, if any, in the absence of enabling legislation? (5) How is collective bargaining affected by state laws prohibiting strikes by public employees? and (6) Will students seek a role in collective bargaining? Part II Review of Related Research The recent emergence of collective bargaining in four-year institutions has limited the opportunity for this subject to be adequately investigated. In com- munity colleges, collective bargaining is being investi- gated more intensively as more of these institutions negotiate contracts. The purpose of this section is to selectively review the research related to collective bargaining and faculty unionization in four-year insti- tutions and community colleges. Faculty-Administrator Attitudes A 1968-1969 Carnegie Foundation survey of 60,477 faculty members indicated that 54.1 per cent 81 of the respondents disagreed with the statement: "Col- lective bargaining by faculty members has no place in a 193 The characteristics of college or university." faculty members who support collective bargaining and unions have been the subject of several studies. Lane has studied 181 members and 261 nonémembers of an AFT union at a large California State College. Federation members were younger, had less college teach- ing experience and had a lower academic rank and salary average than non-union members. Union members were more concerned with institutional prestige, had a lower opinion of the administration, were less interested in geographi- cal location and were more willing to leave the college than professors who did not belong to the AFT. When com- pared with non-members, union respondents were more mili- tant and more apt to support strikes. Members viewed professionalism as a militant process, whereas non—members indicated that "power oriented" militancy was unpro- fessional.194 Similar distinguishing characteristics between militant and non—militant union leaders have also been reported. 193Malcolm G. Scully, "Faculty Members, Liberal on Politics, Found Conservative on Academic Issues," The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 6, 1970, p. 4. 194Robert E. Lane, "Faculty Unionism in a Cali- fornia State College--A Comparative Analysis of Union Mbmbers and Non-Members" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Iowa, 1967, Dissertation Abstracts, 28 [1967], pp. 1,936A-l,937A.) 82 In a study by Ortell of the leaders of the Cali- fornia Junior College Faculty Association (CJCFA) and the California Teachers Association-Southern Section (CTA-SS) indicators of faculty militancy were age, political party affiliation and income. Leaders of the CFCFA and CTA-SS who were over 50 years old, Republicans and earning at least $12,000 a year were less militant with respect to collective bargaining issues than those who were under the age of 50, Democrats and earning less than $12,000 per year.195 Haehn has also conducted research on the charac- teristics of faculty members who support unionism. An analysis of questionnaires from 497 faculty members in the California State College system revealed that indi- viduals from families of skilled and clerical workers were the most likely to support unionism. Faculty members with previous union experience were more apt to support a union than those who did not have any prior union affiliation. Most union members were liberal Democrats. Moderates and conservatives tended to oppose unions regardless of party affiliation. Faculty members who supported or opposed unions could not be distinguished in terms of their occupational 195Edward C. Ortell, "Perceptions of Junior Col- lege Leaders with Respect to Selected Issues in Profes- sional Negotiations" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, United States International University, 1968, Disser- tation Abstracts, 29 [1969], pp. 2,939A-2,940A). 83 commitment, views on the purposes of higher education and perceptions of college or departmental adminis- tration.196 Haehn's first study was conducted in the Spring of 1968. A similar study was conducted in the Fall of 1969 among faculty members in eighteen California State Colleges. A sample of 1,500 faculty members was selected, and a total of 835 or 56 per cent of the questionnaires were returned. Haehn's findings were somewhat different from those in the 1968 study. Haehn stated: Analysis of the reSponses shows that the support for collective bargaining is no longer restricted to cer- tain groups or categories within the ranks of State College instructors. Professors in virtually every disciplinary area, in almost each age group, at all rank levels, and of different educational and pro- fessional Views all have increasingly come to endorse the necessity of instituting collective bargaining in the C.S.C. The possibility that such widespread and broadly based support is a temporary phenomenon is quite slim. The earlier surveys demonstrated dif- ferences on the question along the lines such as those noted above, but with the passage of time and apparently a deeper concern over conditions more and more faculty have come to accept the bargaining con- cept, and this trend has minimized earlier lines of difference.197 Haehn's conclusions were about California State Colleges. Other research has indicated that these conclusions may not be generalizable to faculty members in other states. 196Haehn, "Study of Trade Unionism," 4,580A. 197James O. Haehn, "A Survey of Faculty and Admin- istrator Attitudes on Collective Bargaining," A Report to the Academic Senate, California State Colleges, Chico State College, May, 1970, pp. 41-42. 84 In a study of 547 faculty members in ten Pennsyl- vania community colleges, Moore found that those who most favored collective bargaining were: (1) relatively young, (2) male, (3) non—Protestant, (4) political liberals, (5) graduate-degree recipients, (6) teaching non-science subjects, (7) without tenure and (8) in the lower academic ranks. Dissatisfaction with community college teaching, former union membership and high school teaching experience were also characteristics of faculty members who supported unions. Faculty members who felt that they could not influence the direction of the college (sense of power) were more receptive to collective bar- gaining than those who had a high sense of power. Indi- viduals who conceived of themselves as highly mobile were more inclined to support collective bargaining than those who had a low sense of mobility. However, approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they would join a union engaged in collective bargaining.198 While some faculty members have supported col- lective bargaining, administrators have been less apt to endorse it for colleges and universities. Angell found that 16 of 21 community college presidents 198William Moore, "The Attitudes of Pennsylvania Community College Faculty Toward Collective Negotiations in Relation to Their Sense of Power and Sense of Mobility" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, 1970, Dissertation Abstracts, 31 [1971], p. 4,495A). 85 interviewed in upstate New York believe that collective bargaining had made their work "more difficult, time- 199 Haehn's 1969 investi- consuming and complicated." gation included 173 presidents and other administrators. Collective bargaining by faculty members was favored by approximately 35 per cent of the respondents, 21 per cent were uncertain and 43 per cent were opposed.200 In a study of community colleges which were accredited, candidates for accreditation or correspon— dents in the North Central Association, Hunter found that the college presidents and presidents of the faculty organization favored collective bargaining. Chairmen of governing boards opposed collective bargaining but pre- ferred it to individual negotiations.201 The Role of State Agencies, Governing BOards and Presie dents in Cdllective Bargaining Representatives from state governmental agencies, members of governing boards and presidents have been 199George W. Angell, "Collective Negotiations in Upstate New York Community Colleges, 1968-1971," Report sponsored by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board, June, 1971, p. 38. 200Haehn, "Survey Faculty Administrator Attitudes," p. 32. 201John R. Hunter, "An Analysis of Observations Regarding Issues of Negotiations in Community Junior Col- leges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Kansas, 1970, Diesertation Abstracts, 31 [1970], pp. 2,643A-2,644A.Y_ w.~u‘?o.- kw), r 1 86 involved in the preparations for and the collective bar- gaining process. The extent to which these groups have been involved has varied between states and institutions. In many states, governmental agencies such as the Michigan Employment Relations Commission and the New York Public Employment Relations Board have been third- party participants in the management-union relationship. These agencies have been responsible for determining the scope of the bargaining unit based on employer and employee petitions, and they have supervised elections in which bargaining unit members vote to select or reject union representation. State agencies have also provided arbi- tration, mediation and fact-finding services to assist in resolving impasses. 8 Representatives of state governmental agencies have participated in other phases of the collective bar- gaining process. Angell found that in twenty-one upstate New York community colleges, governmental officials such as a county attorney were on employer bargaining teams at thirteen institutions.202 In New Jersey the chancellor initially represented the Board of Higher Education in attempting to negotiate a settlement on a state-wide basis with six four-year 202Angell, "Upstate New York 68-71," p. 9. 87 state colleges; but with the election of a new governor, the governor's offices became greatly involved in col- lective bargaining.203 Members of institutional governing boards have participated in various phases of the collective bargain- ing process. In New York community colleges, governing board members served on bargaining teams in ten of the twenty-one institutions studied.204 However, there has been some evidence that the role of the governing board in collective bargaining has changed after the first contract has been negotiated. In a study of fifteen Michigan community colleges, Williams found that when governing boards were confronted with collective bargaining for the first time, most of them did very little to prepare for negotiations but were apt to serve on the bargaining team. When a second or third contract was negotiated, board members did more to prepare for bargaining but were on the bargaining team in only one community college.205 203William F. McHugh, "Recent Developments in Col- lective Bargaining in Higher Education," College Counsel, 5 (1970), 159. 204Angell, "Upstate New York 68-71," p. 4. 205 pp. 73-114. Williams, "Study Organizational Procedures," 88 The boards studied in this sample, with one exception eventually stopped participating in actual negoti- ations. They moved toward developing policies, guidelines, and procedures in consultation with their administrative staff and making extensive use of peOple with knowledge and experience in labor negotiations.20 Williams recommended that the appropriate role for the governing board in collective bargaining should be that of establishing broad and flexible guidelines for the bargaining team.207 The role of the president in collective bargain- ing has been a subject of investigation. Prisco used questionnaires to survey faculty negotiators, governing board members and presidents in thirteen New Jersey com- munity colleges to determine their expectations for the president in collective bargaining. There was no con- sensus among the respondents as to their expectations for the president, and they did not mandate a specific role for the position. Prisco suggested that the dif- ferences in expectations held by faculty negotiators and board members may lead to institutional conflict. Adverse consequences may result for the president when confronted *with two sets of expectations-~those of the faculty negotiators and those of the governing board.208 2061bid., p. 96. 207Ibid., p. 145. 208Frederick R. Prisco, Jr., "Expectations of Presidents, Board Members, and Faculty Negotiators for the Role of the New Jersey County-Community College President 89 A key issue has been whether the president should be on the bargaining team. Gianopulos has summarized the arguments regarding this issue: Some see him as the autonomous professional head of the school consulting both the board and faculty; others, as chief Spokesman for the board. Some see him consulting board members as they perform the negotiating process. Some perceive him as chief negotiator representing the board in all dealings with the staff; others view him a member of the administrative negotiating team but not necessarily the chief spokesman—-that role being performed by legal counsel or an outside negotiating specialist. Still others consider him as having no place in the negotiating process and therefore, completely bypassed.2 9 Among community college presidents, Gianopulos found that they see their role as either that of being an independent party, of facilitating a positive relation- ship between the board and faculty or of advising and representing both groups. Leaders of faculty organi- zations prefer that the president serve as the chief negotiator for the board. Gianopulos concluded that the appropriate role of the president should be that of an independent party providing information and clarifying issues and mediating between the board and faculty.210 in Faculty-Board Negotiations" (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Rutgers University, 1971, Dissertation Abstracts, 32 [1971], p. 2,974A). 209John W. Gianopulos, "The College Administrator and Collective Negotiations," Junior College Journal, 41 (August-September, 1970), 27-28. 21°1bid., pp. 28-29. 90 Williams has studied the role of fifteen Michigan community college presidents in collective bargaining. When these institutions first began collective bargaining, six presidents actively attempted to influence negoti- ations. By 1969, four of these administrators had assumed a guidance or advisory capacity similar to that performed on an initial and continuing basis by eight other presidents. One president's involvement had con- tinually been insignificant. At least five presidents had initially served on their institution's bargaining team, and one of these was the chief spokesman. In 1969 presidents were no longer on the bargaining teams of the 211 Williams has recommended community colleges surveyed. that the president should be responsible for negotiations but that authority should be delegated to the chief negotiator. Also, the president should assist in imple- menting board policy and serve as a communication link between the bargaining team and governing board.212 Preparations for Collective Bargaining An important aspect of the collective bargaining relationship has been the preparations of the parties prior to the beginning of negotiations. According to Schmidt: 211Williams, "Study Organizational Procedures:" Pp. 107-140 2121bid., p. 145. 91 The most significant role for the board of education must be in this first stage of the negotiation pro- cess-~the preparation. During this period, the board must work thoroughly, effectively, and without any time limitations with the school superintendent and with the negotiating team. The whole purpose of this phase is to prepare the negotiating team and to give them specific guidelines to use at the negotiating session.21 Davey has offered several guidelines for preparing for negotiations in the private sector: (1) Review present contract to determine areas that require modification; (2) Analyze grievances as indicators of employee demands and unworkable contract language: (3) Confer with supervisors to determine how well contract has worked in practice; (4) Confer with other management personnel in the area to exchange viewpoints and to discuss possible union demands: (5) Survey employees to determine their reactions to those portions of the contract that management feels may need changing: (6) Have informal conferences with union leaders to discuss operational effectiveness of current con- tract and to explore potential areas of negotiation; 213Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., "Negotiating the Local Agreement," in Guide Collective Negotiations in Education, p. 50. 92 (7) Stay informed of current labor relations develop- ments that may be important in negotiations through the use of a commercial reporting service; (8) Collect and analyze economic data on potentially negotiable issues; (9) Study arbitration decisions.214 The final stages of preparation in industry have usually included: (1) deve10pment of proposals for changes in the contract, (2) determination of the size of the economic package, (3) development of statistical displays and supportive data to be used in the bargaining sessions and (4) systematically organize a broad range of materials in a bargaining book.215 Procedures somewhat similar to those used in preparing for bargaining in the industrial sector have also been recommended for administrators in secondary and elementary schools.216 However, Gilroy, et al. have 214Harold W. Davey, Contemporary Collective Bar- ainin (2nd ed.; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice HaIl,’Inc., I pp. 102-03. 215Meyer S. Ryder, Charles M. Rehmus, and Sanford Coehen, Management Preparation for Collective Bargaining (Homewood, IlI.: Dow Jones-Irwin, Inc.,‘1966), p. 53. 216Schmidt, "Negotiating Local Agreement," 47-53; Thomas P. Gilroy, Anthony V. Sinicropis, Franklin S. Stone, (and Theodore R. Urich, Educators Guide to Collective Negoti- ations (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 35-31. .stIQfls 93 suggested that when preparing for collective bargaining in education, administrators must consider that the school operates on an annual budget; and the taxpayers have a definite interest in the outcomes of negoti- ations.217 The importance of educating governing board mem- bers on the background and process of collective bargain- 218 Gianopulos has ing has been stressed by Williams. stated, "As collective negotiations become more pro- nounced, graduate training, in-service sessions, and workshops should be initiated to prepare community col- lege administrators, board members, and representatives of faculty and student organizations for rational par- 219 ticipation in collective negotiations." And Kerr has recommended that personnel directors should prepare by becoming sensitive to the problems of faculty members and by learning the "academic language."220 217Gilroy, et al., Educators Guide, p. 30. 218Williams, "Study Organizational Procedures," p. 142. 219Gianopulos, "Beyond the Bread and Butter Issues," 19. 220David J. Kerr, "Faculty Bargaining in Higher Education--New Twists to the University," The Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 22 94 Kerr has also recommended that preparations for collective bargaining should occur immediately. All personnel directors should inform presidents of collec- tive bargaining trends in higher education and problems related to negotiations and faculty organizing. Additional recommendations included: (1) developing a program to present to the union at the bargaining table, (2) formu- lating a strike plan, (3) collecting salary data, (4) gathering workload and class size information and (5) preparing to negotiate a wide variety of issues.221 Several guidelines that institutions should con- sider before collective bargaining have been recommended by Williams. These include: (1) The allocation of time and money to preparations for collective bargaining: (2) The development of a philosophy of trust and con- fidence in the chief negotiator and the union's bargaining team: (3) The availability of at least one individual experienced in collective bargaining and knowl- edgeable about the institution; (4) Defining the roles of the governing board, the president, the chief negotiator and other admin- istrative staff in collective bargaining; 2211bid., pp. 40-44. 95 (5) Up-to—date and well-developed personnel policies and faculty handbooks which reflect current practices; (6) Adequate data collection; (7) The development of proposals to present to the union; (8) The establishment of a strike plan; (9) A clearly defined faculty bargaining unit; (10) The development of procedural rules for the b . . . 222 argaining 5e551ons. Lorenz has also stressed the importance of establishing "ground rules" with the union prior to negotiations.223 Bucklew has stated that collective bargaining has fiscal implications which should be anticipated by col- leges and universities. Collective bargaining requires an administrative infrastructure which will result in direct and indirect personnel costs. Key administrators, budget directors, data-processing personnel and others will be involved in collective bargaining. Also, attorneys may be needed, and in large institutions new 222 pp. 141-49. Williams, "Study Organizational Procedures," 223Fred J. Lorenz, "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education," The Journal of the College and Uni- versig Personnel Association, 23 Wecember, 1971) , 39-40. 96 staff personnel will be required plus information systems to keep abreast of internal and external developments that relate to collective bargaining.224 The development of "costing models" has been sug- gested by Bucklew as a method for evaluating the fiscal implications of the various proposals presented by the union. A model should be prepared before negotiations and should include information on ranks, degrees, work load average and other information that could be used as a basis for a salary demand. Immediate- and long-term costs of various proposals should also be anticipated.225 The Bargaining Team An important aspect of the collective bargaining process has been the selection of the negotiating team. Morse has suggested several considerations for selecting management team members in private employment.226 warner and Hennessy have commented on employer bargaining teams in the public sector.227 The composition of teams 224Neil S. Bucklew, "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education: Its Fiscal Implications," Liberal Edu- cation, 57 (May, 1971), 255-57. 2251bid., pp. 257-59. 226Bruce Morse, How to Negotiate the Labor Agree- ment (Detroit: Trends Publishing Co., 1963), pp. 25-26. 227Kenneth 0. Warner and Mary L. Hennessy, Public Management at the Bargaining Table (Chicago: Public Personnel Association, 1967), pp. 156-58. 97 representing elementary and secondary school boards of education has been discussed by Shils and Whitter;228 and Belcher, Avery and Smith have made several recom- mendations for selecting individuals to bargain with non- academic employees in institutions of higher education.229 The dynamics and psychology of bargaining teams have been analyzed by Nierenberg.23o Williams has recommended that in community col- leges the bargaining team remain small and include: (1) a chief negotiator, (2) a business or financial officer, (3) a representative of the college instruc- tional program and (4) a personnel administrator. A labor attorney should also be available to the team; and the role of the governing board, the president and chief negotiator should be clearly defined.231 Angell has taken a slightly different view stating that the team should include persons familiar with the problems of the president and faculty, the policies of 228Edward B. Shils and C. Taylor Whitter, Teachers, Administrators and Collective Bargaining (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1968), pp. 328-36. 229Belcher, Avery and Smith, Labor Relations Higher Education, pp. 59-61. 230Gerard I. Nierenberg, The Art of Negotiating (New York: Cornerstone Library, 1971). 231 pp. 144-450 Williams, "Study Organizational Procedures," 98 the governing board and the "political climate." Further- more the team should have a member who has had bargaining experience even if the institution has to hire such a person.232 Based on the Central Michigan University exper- ience with collective bargaining, Kerr has suggested that the administration's bargaining team should include indi- viduals with a wide range of expertise: 1. Members should be knowledgeable about academic concerns. 2. One member should be familiar with the insti- tution's personnel programs and contracts with other unions. 3. There should be someone with expertise in financial and budgetary matters. 4. There should be an individual with bargaining experience, but sensitive to academe. Whether an attorney is on the team should be dependent upon the members' experience, but legal advice should be available. Kerr also suggested that the team should be about the same size as the group representing the union.233 232Angell, "Upstate New York 68-71," pp. 23-25. 233Kerr, "Faculty Bargaining New Twists," 39-40. 99 According to Howe, the most important decision regarding the bargaining team is the selection of the chief spokesman. Adding that, The initial option available to those whose burden it will be to create this office is only two-fold. The negotiator may come from within the institution or from without. Considering the likelihood of the dearth of previous experience with collective bar- gaining on the part of staff within the college, the latter choice will unquestionably be attrac- tive.234 The organizational structure of community colleges in Michigan had an influence on the composition of the bargaining team. Some colleges were part of the ele- mentary and secondary school system (K-12), and the bar- gaining unit was composed of teachers and faculty members. In these districts, administrators from the college and K-12 system were on the employer's bargaining team. Institutions which were part of the K-12 system but had a separate unit for college faculty had a diversity of administrators on the team, including those from the college and elementary and secondary school system.235 Business managers, deans and personnel directors have been the most frequent members of the employer's team in Michigan community colleges. The average team size has been 4.3 members; and while attorneys had an 234Ray A. Howe, "The Negotiator as a Campus Figure," Junior College Journal, 42 (April, 1972), 29. 2353uys, "Collective Bargaining Michigan Community Colleges," 39-40. 100 important role in negotiations, they were on only two teams. Personnel directors have been chief negotiators in six institutions and were selected on the basis of their experience and knowledge of collective bargaining. They had the responsibility of communicating bargaining developments to the president and the board, with the later retaining final decision-making authority.236 College administrators, government officials and trustees have served on bargaining teams in New York com- munity colleges. The size of these bargaining teams has ranged from three to thirteen with a median size of five members.237 Another dimension of the composition of bargaining teams has been studied by Karrass. Professional negoti- ators from the aerospace industry were observed in simu- lated bargaining sessions to determine the relationship between negotiators' traits and bargaining outcomes. Participants were pre-evaluated on traits by their supervisors with those receiving high ratings opposing those with low ratings in the simulations. The bargain- ing power of the participants was varied in the simu- lations. Successful negotiators, regardless of their power at the outset, had high scores on the traits of 236 pp. 111-16. Williams, "Study Organizational Procedures," 237Angell, "Upstate New York 68-71," pp. 7-8. 101 self-worth, thought processes, aggressiveness, communi- cation, task performance and social skills. And indi- viduals with a history of psychological success and effective ego functioning were also successful negoti- ators.238 Another characteristic of negotiators that has been studied is their effectiveness in achieving an agree- ment. Sinibaldi has examined the relationship between dogmatism and the frequency of impasse, frequency of overt negative reactions and gain-achievement in bargaining. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was used to test the graduate student participants in the study. The composition of individual and opposing bargaining teams was manipulated to ensure that various combinations of dogmatism inter- actions could be observed during the simulations. Negoti- ating teams that had either high or low test scores were more likely to avoid impasse and negative interactions ‘when the opposing team members had similar dogmatism levels than when the opposing team had mixed dogmatism levels. Sinibaldi stated that these findings were not consistent with other research and recommended that 238Chester L. Karrass, "A Study of the Relation- ship of Negotiator Skill and Power as Determinants of Negotiation Outcomes" (unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, [university of Southern California, 1969, Dissertation Abstracts, 30 [1970], p. 4,073A). 102 additional studies should be conducted to offset the atmospheric weakness of the simulation situation.239 Creal found that the procedures used in negoti- ating and the attitudes of the participants were important factors in avoiding impasse. These findings were based on interviews with faculty negotiators and chief spokesmen for governing boards in eight Michigan community colleges. Effective procedures for reaching an agreement included: (1) structured private sessions with a deadline, (2) a problem-solving approach, (3) full communication and (4) responsiveness to constituents for a reasonable settlement without disruption. Negotiators who could implement these procedures and were knowledgeable about the school and the bargaining process were apt to reach an agreement without an impasse. Positive attitudes toward their role, the role of the opposing team and an acceptance of the collective bargaining process char- 240 acterized the best negotiators. Lane has also sug- gested that attitudes and interpersonal relationships 239Robert J. Sinibaldi, "Negotiator Dogmatism and Bargaining Behavior and Outcomes in Educational Organi- zations” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Boston Uni- versity, 1970, Dissertation Abstracts, 31 [1970], p. 2,663A). 240Richard C. Creal, "A Study of the Factors which Influence the Course of Collective Negotiation Toward Resolution or Impasse in Selected Michigan Community Col- leges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of .Michigan, 1969), pp. 197-202. 103 have been important factors in the inclination of the bargaining teams to reach an agreement in private employ- ment.241 Another dimension of attitudes that has been investigated by Horvat was the relationship between labor- management orientation and the outcomes of collective bargaining. Bargaining simulations were structured to represent varying polarizations of labor-management atti- tudes as determined from participant responses to a questionnaire. Negotiators had ninety minutes to resolve seven issues; and outcomes were analyzed in terms of the written agreement, a post test and an analysis of verbal interactions during the simulation. Highly polarized teams, when compared with less highly polarized teams, required more time to reach an agreement, were less satisfied with outcomes, exhibited a lower level of task-oriented behavior and engaged in a higher level of antagonistic behavior. Negotiators who had a negative orientation toward the opposition caused impasses. Teams with moderate attitudes toward the opposing side were 241Tracy N. Lane, "An Investigation of Some Non- Economic Factors in Collective Bargaining Associated with the Satisfaction of the Negotiators" (unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, University of washington, 1971, Dissertation Abstracts, 32 [1971], p. 2,802A). 104 more successful than those who had negative attitudes, regardless of the labor-management orientation of the other side.242 The Outcomes of Collective Bargaining The existence of a contract with a faculty union has had several implications for colleges and universities-- it has affected salaries, decision—making procedures and faculty-administrator relationships. In order to admin- ister the contract, administrators have had to assume new responsibilities; and there has been some evidence that collective bargaining has had a financial impact on institutions. In a study of Midwestern community colleges, Gianopulos observed that collective bargaining tended to result in higher pay increases than would have been received otherwise. Salaries were clustered closer together among the colleges, "without particular regard to relative financial ability to pay, thereby intensify- ing inequity of fiscal support from district to dis- trict."243 242John J. Horvat, ”A Quasi-Experimental Study of Behavior in the Professional Negotiations Process" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1968, Dissertation Abstracts, 29 [1968], p. 778A). 243Gianopulos, "Beyond Bread Butter Issues," 18. Sample size and research technique were not reported. 105 Different findings have been reported by Gram who compared the salaries of faculty members in eight Michigan community colleges employed continuously from 1963-1964 to 1968-1969. Salaries were more homogeneous before collec- tive bargaining within colleges, disciplines, degree and experience levels and for all colleges in the study. There was a greater difference between high and low salaries after collective bargaining. Therefore, Gram concluded that unions sought greater maximum salaries which everyone had the opportunity to achieve rather than a greater standardization of salaries.244 In Shoup's study of thirteen Michigan community colleges, most faculty negotiators, presidents and trus- tees agreed that faculty salaries and fringe benefits were improved as a result of collective bargaining.245 Union leaders and administrators at Central Michigan Uni- versity, City University of New York, Rutgers University, St. Johns University and Southeastern Massachusetts University, with one exception, have reported that 244Christine E. G. H. Gram, "Impact of Collective Bargaining on Faculty Salary Structures in Michigan Com- munity Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Uni- ‘versity of Michigan, 1971), pp. 91-92. 245Charles A. Shoup, "A Study of Faculty Collective Bargaining in Michigan Community Colleges" (unpublished Ph.Du dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969), pp. 62-67. "‘ ‘13“ sq, ‘I 106 there has been an "appreciable" increase in faculty salaries at their institutions since collective bargain- ing.246 A Michigan State University faculty committee has also reported that it was difficult to assess the impact of collective bargaining on salaries and fringe benefits independent of other considerations. And the committee stated that collective bargaining might even- tually result in equality of salaries within academic ranks and that merit and market considerations "would most likely be applied in such a way as to create smaller 247 salary differentials." Bernard Mintz, Vice Chancellor for Administration at CUNY, has argued that unionization was not responsible 248 How- for high faculty salaries at that institution. ever, Angell has stated that, "There is some evidence that whip-sawing, using the New York City University contract salaries (highest in the nation) as a model may increase costs disproportionate to eXpectations based 246Michigan State University Faculty Affairs Com- twittee, "An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining by University Faculties," Michigan State University, East JLansing, Michigan, March 9, 1971, pp. 8-11. (Mimeographed.) 247Jackson, "Report Ad Hoc University Committee," p. 26. 248Phyllis Malamud, "Faculty: Labor or Manage- ment?" Chanje Magazine, 3 (September, 1971), 21. 107 on other considerations."249 But, Garbarino states that generally "in the current era of financial stringency, the unions in the public universities have negotiated general increases approximately equivalent to those granted other public employees in their jurisdictions."250 Accompanying the impact of collective bargaining on faculty income has been an alteration in institutional governance. The desire for increased participation in decision-making was cited as one of the major factors that motivated faculty members to seek union represen— tation. Shoup concluded from a Michigan community col- lege study: In sum, there was general agreement that faculty had, indeed, gained a meaningful voice in those matters that most directly affected them. They were sharing with administrators and trustees in the making of decisions concerning salary, fringe benefits and other personnel decisions directly affecting them. However, no clear pattern was revealed in regard to the effect of collective bargaining on faculty participation outside this area. The actual outcome appeared to depend substantially on the willingness of the administrator to share his power with the faculty.251 249George W. Angell, "Collective Negotiations in ‘Upstate New York," Junior College Journal, 42 (October, 1971), ll. 250Garbarino, "Faculty Unionism: Theory to Practice, " 11. 251Shoup, "Faculty Bargaining Michigan Community Colleges , " P- 72 - 108 These findings have been partially supported in'a more detailed study of faculty participation in decision making in Michigan community colleges. Bylsma studied six Michigan community colleges to determine if changes in the locus of decision-making had occurred as a result of collective bargaining. An analy- sis of college publications and data derived from inter- views revealed that in the "faculty welfare" areas of salary, class size, academic calendar, continuing con- tracts, work loads and time assignments, faculty members were participating in decision-making on a co-equal basis with administrators who previously had almost complete dominance in these areas.252 A similar change was found in the "academic affairs" areas of faculty selection and in the appoint- ment of administrators. Shared decision-making had not occurred in text selection, admissions policies, college and departmental objectives, curriculum, degree require- :ments and course assignments. Bylsma suggested that faculty members have concentrated their efforts on personal welfare areas and have been less.successfu1 or interested in securing decision-making prerogatives in O 253 academic governance. 252 pp. 155-56. Bylsma, "Changes Organizational Structure," 253Ibid., pp. 156-57. 109 Bylsma also used several indices to determine if the sample of Michigan community college has become more bureaucratized since collective bargaining. Since 1965, rules and regulations had become more specific for faculty and administrators, the impersonality between them was greater and decision-making groups had become more specialized. These organizations had become more bureaucratic but more representative as well, since faculty members were participating in decisions which had previously been administrative prerogatives.254 Another aspect of the decision-making process that has been studied under collective bargaining has been the infringement of the union in areas considered by adminis- trators as managerial prerogatives. Sunde analyzed thirty community college contracts from seven states and found little evidence to suggest that faculty members were assuming administrative or managerial functions.255 Shoup also found that collective bargaining had not resulted in faculty members assuming a major role in decisions previously made by administrators and trustees.256 254Ibid., pp. 157-59. 255Donald K. Sunde, "A Critical Examination of Selected Collective Negotiation Contracts from Public Com- munity Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1971, Dissertation Abstracts, 32 [1971], p. 2,926A). 256Shoup, "Faculty Bargaining Michigan Community Colleges," Po 107- 110 Despite these findings, there have been some indications that collective bargaining has had an effect on faculty-administrator relationships. According to Shoup, collective bargaining in thirteen Michigan com- munity colleges has: (1) Tended to polarize faculty and administrators, but the nature of this polarization was dependent upon the personalities involved; (2) Reduced administrative flexibility and standard- ized the treatment of faculty members; (3) Created communication problems, but these have varied among colleges. There was a relationship between the amount of formal and informal com- munication that occurred and the degree of trust and respect that was present in the relationship.257 Collective bargaining has had additional implications for other administrators in two-year institutions. Shoup found that governing board members were required to become better informed about the institution and more aware of faculty problems and needs. Job satis- faction was reduced for some presidents, and they were ”forced to 'go by the contract' to a greater extent and 257Ibid., pp. 73-78. 111 some have shared their decision-making responsibilities to a greater degree with faculty."258 Community college presidents in New York have been concerned about their changing relationship with students, faculty, trustees and government officials. Presidents find themselves more directly involved with external politics and internal management con- trol, and they particularly dislike the trend toward being supervised by government officials such as a county executive or a budget director. Internally presidents and deans find it necessary to meet regu- larly with union officials, and these meetings con- fuse the usual patterns of governance by faculty senates, councils, and committees.259 In addition, deans reported a loss of identity and authority and were concerned about a decline in faculty professionalism. They felt they were becoming grievance mediators and were no longer academic leaders.260 The existence of a contract with a faculty union has had other implications for administrative personnel. .At CUNY it was necessary to assign a high-level person at each college with the responsibility of administering the contract and working with faculty labor relations. Uni- 'versity-wide workshops were held for these individuals and their staffs to familiarize them with the contract, 2581bid., p. 109. 259Angell, "Collective Negotiations in Upstate NeW'Yorkr" 10- 260Ibid. 112 and they in turn held meetings at their colleges to review the agreement with key administrative personnel. A five- session course on the administration of grievance pro- cedures was developed by the University for individuals responsible for the administration of the contract. And a communications network was established between the CUNY central office and individual campuses to facilitate information sharing and to insure uniformity in contract interpretation.261 Eventually it became apparent that first-line administrators of the agreement, such as department chairmen, needed additional information and an oppor— tunity to review problems in contract interpretation. WOrkshops were held on each campus for these adminis- trators with special emphasis placed on grievance pro- cedures.262 Contact administration has also had an impact on the institution's organizational structure. Bucklew has reported that administering the contact at CMU has neces- sitated the following: (1) The establishment of closer coordination between the academic affairs office, the personnel office and business division; 261Mintz, "CUNY Experience," 121. 262Ibid. 113 (2) The implementation of procedures to ensure the close coordination of personnel programs affect- ing all unions on campus; (3) The centralization of the administration of the staff benefit program for all employees; (4) The coordination of operational decisions made by those involved in the administration of the agreement; (5) The creation of administrator-faculty committees as required by the contract. Bucklew also noted that because department chairmen have been included in the bargaining unit, the first-line administrators of the contract for the university have been the deans of the colleges. In one college this has resulted in a supervisory span of control ratio of approximately 1 to 300. This may necessitate the employ- ment of additional administrative staff in the future.263 Collective bargaining has raised the issue of whether the operating costs of colleges and universities with a contract have increased. Angell has studied this issue: Some data were collected and costs per student credit hour were analyzed over a five-year period including two years prior to the effective date of the Taylor 263Bucklew, "Administering a Faculty Agreement," 46-48. 114 law. Costs continued upward throughout the period 1965-70, but no more rapidly during the post Taylor law period than during the pre Taylor law period.264 Any generalized conclusion from this finding must con— sider that the study was limited to New York. Shoup reported somewhat different findings in Michigan community colleges noting that the outcomes of collective bargaining have resulted in an increase in oper- ating budgets. Other factors have contributed to increased costs, and collective bargaining has not caused any financial hardships. However, trustees and presidents were concerned that if salary trends continued, financial problems could occur in the future.265 Collective bargaining has had cost implications for administrators. Angell has stated, "The large cost of negotiations, according to presidents, is in terms of time, new staff, and fragile emotional personalities."266 Boyd has viewed the time invested by presidents and other top policy makers as a cost. A variety of admin- istrators, such as the business manager, the budget director and controller have had to assume new time- consuming responsibilities that were not part of their 264Angell, "Collective Negotiations in Upstate New York," 11. 265$houp, "Faculty Bargaining Michigan Community Colleges,” pp. 67-68. 266Angell, "Collective Negotiations in Upstate New York," 11. 115 jobs before the advent of collective bargaining. "The total cost of all this time consumption is substantial. It will be paid for partly by money which might other- wise have been spent in different ways, and partly by diverting energy from other tasks that should have been performed."267 Summary Research studies on collective bargaining in higher education have focused on community colleges. The liter- ature dealing with four-year institutions has been general in nature and often speculative with respect to the causes and outcomes of collective bargaining. A few studies have been conducted on the charac- teristics of faculty members who have been either in support of or opposed to collective bargaining. There has been some evidence that characteristics such as age, academic rank, family background, mobility, political party affiliation, salary, sex and teaching experience differentiate between those who support or do not support collective bargaining. However, the conclusions regard- ing these distinguishing characteristics have varied; and they may not be generalizable to populations other than those studied. 267Boyd, "Collective Bargaining in Academe," 313. 116 In institutions where collective bargaining has taken place, the role of representatives from state govern- mental agencies, members of governing boards and presi- dents has varied. The paucity of research on the involve- ment of these persons in collective bargaining in four- year institutions prohibits any generalized conclusion as to their current role. Although the preparation procedures for collective bargaining in the private sector may have some applica- bility to higher education, there seem to be other factors unique to the collegiate environment that administrators may need to be aware of in preparing for negotiations. However, the procedures used in preparing for collective bargaining in four-year institutions apparently have not been documented. The selection of the bargaining team has been emphasized in the literature as an important aspect of collective bargaining. Generally, it has been recommended that the team have a chief spokesman and persons knowledge- able about the institutions personnel policies, academic programs and financial status. Research on bargaining team size and composition has been limited to community colleges and only a few four-year institutions. Some studies have investigated the characteristics of bargaining team members who have either contributed to or have been detrimental to the bargaining process. 117 There has been some evidence that characteristics such as self-worth, aggressiveness, social skill, dogmatism, attitude toward collective bargaining, knowledge of the institution and effective bargaining procedures and labor- management orientation differentiate between those negoti- ators who reach agreement and those who do not. A few studies have analyzed the outcomes of col- lective bargaining. Although the findings regarding the effect of collective bargaining on salaries have varied, faculty members seem to participate more in decisions regarding their economic welfare than in other areas. Whether collective bargaining has directly increased the cost of operating the institution has not been determined, but there has been some indication that indirect costs have increased. Limited research has revealed that unions have not attempted to infringe on managerial prerogatives, but faculty-administrator relationships have been affected by collective bargaining. The existence of a contract seems to require some changes in the organizational structure and the development of training programs in order for administrators to administer the agreement. The review of the literature has revealed many studies on the development of faculty unionism. While some research has been conducted on collective bargaining in educational institutions, it has not focused on the problem which will be investigated in this study. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this chapter is to present the research design used in conducting the study. This chap- ter includes a discussion of the (l) procedures used to identify the population and participants included in the study, (2) the research technique, (3) the procedures used to develop and refine the research instrument, (4) the procedures used to collect the information and (5) the technique used to analyze and present the findings of the study. The Population The colleges and universities which were selected for study met the following criteria: 1. The faculty union and representatives of the institution's governing board had negotiated and ratified a written contract which was effective prior to December 31, 1971. 2. They were public institutions under state, local and state or local control. 118 119 3. The institutions offered a four-year baccae laureate degree. The first step in the selection process was to identify colleges and universities that had negotiated and Operationalized a written agreement with a predomi- nately faculty union prior to December 31, 1971. The primary resources used in this step were issues of The Chronicle of Higher Education from January 1, 1971, to December 31, 1971, and information contained in the "Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining" prepared by a Michigan State University 268 faculty committee. The Education Directory, 1970-1971, Higher Education269 was used to determine if the insti- tutions identified in step one, met the other two cri- teria. Seven institutions met these criteria and six were selected for study. These institutions were diversified with respect to bargaining unit size, student enrollment, geographic distribution, number of degree programs, setting (e.g. rural, urban) and control. Faculty bargaining agents in these schools included affiliates of the AAUP, AFT and 268Jackson, "Report Ad Hoc University Committee." p. 36. 269U.S., Department of Health, Education, and welfare, Office of Education, Education Directory, 1970- 1971, Hi her Education (washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, I§VIS. 120 NEA. Single and multi-campus universities and a state system of higher education were represented in the study. The persons who were asked to provide information for the study were identified by Dr. C. Keith Groty, Assistant Vice President for Employee Relations at Michigan State University. These individuals had a wide range of job titles. Each of the participants had been on a team which had bargained at least one contract with the faculty union in their institution and they all had been involved in the preparations preceding the negotiations process. To preserve anonymity, the par- ticipants and their institutions were not identified in the study . The Research Interview Telephone and in-person interviews were used to collect the data for this study. These research tech- niques were selected for several reasons. Van Dalen states that, "Many people are more willing to communicate information verbally than in writing and, therefore, will Provide data more readily and fully in an interview than on a questionnaire."270 According to Borg, the interview PrOVides the interviewer with the opportunity to follow “P leads and obtain a greater depth of information than \ R 2VoDeobold V. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational e“Search (New York: McGraw-Hill WC” 1962) , p- o 121 is often possible using other techniques. Rapport can also be established and effective communication facili- tated in the research interview.271 Telephone interviews were used to collect infor- nmation from individuals located beyond a ZOO-mile radius cxf East Lansing, Michigan. By using telephone interviews, tune scope of the study was expanded to include colleges axnd universities that otherwise would have been excluded from the investigation. There is some evidence that the information obtained from personal and telephone interviews is similar. Peterson272 and Sartor273 have reported that their results were not significantly affected by using both techniques to collect data. After comparing the two techniques, Sudman concluded: "In none of these experiments was there any indication that the telephone 271Walter R. Borg, Educational Research: An Introduction (New York: David McKa , Inc., 19657, p. 224. , 272William D. Peterson, "A Study of Incidents Hav- ing an Impact on the Effectiveness of New and Experienced P{residents of Selected Colleges and Universities in the Mlfiiw$st" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uanersity, 1972), p. 83. P 273Laurence C. Sartor, "A Study of Program Planning 1: aCztices in Student Personnel Administration" (unpub- 319$th Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 0) , p. 70. 122 results were any less satisfactory than those obtained for personal interviews."274 Despite the advantages of the interview and its dapplicability to this study the technique has limitations. luccording to Borg: The very adaptability gained by the interpersonal situation leads to subjectivity and possible bias. The interactions between the respondent and the interviewer are subject to bias from many sources. Eagerness of the respondent to please the interviewer, a vague antagonism that sometimes arises between the interviewer and the respondent, and the tendency of the interviewer to seek out answers that support his preconceived notions are but a few of the factors that contribute to possible biasing of data obtained from the interview. 75 THnese disadvantages were taken into consideration in the development of the interview guide. The Instrument Several factors were considered in the development (Jf the interview guide. Foremost, was the need to reduce the opportunity for the interviewer to bias the responses of the interviewee. This potential problem was taken inix: consideration by developing a series of structured Or'Estandardized questions that served as the basis for the interview . 274 . , Seymour Sudman, ReduCin the Cost of Surveys (Chicago: David McKay, Inc., I§6§), p. 22[. 275Borg, Educational Research, p. 221. 123 In the standardized interview, the questions, their sequence, and their wording are fixed. An inter- viewer may be allowed some liberty in asking questions, but very little. This liberty is specified in advance. Standardized interviews use interview schedules that have been carefully prepared in advance to obtain information pertinent to the research problem.”6 The questions in the interview guide were based on the purposes and dimensions of the study (Appendix A). 'NLiberty" in the interview guide was limited to asking Extobing questions, when, in the judgment of the inter- xriewer, answers seemed incomplete. The method to be used in recording the responses <>f the participants was another consideration in the development of the interview guide. Tape recording the responses was selected because of the many advantages associated with this technique including: (1) the ten- ciency of interviewers to select data favoring their bias .is reduced; (2) a thorough analysis of responses can be Inade.during several tape play backs; and (3) the inter- view process is speeded up since note taking by the 277 A pilot study was con- interviewer is not required. ducted to validate the interview guide and to refine interview procedures . 276Kerlinger, Behavioral Research, p. 469. 2.77Borg, Educational Research, p. 225. 124 The Pilot Study The objectives of the pilot study were to deter- mine if the interview guide produced the information .needed to accomplish the purpose of the study, to ascer- tain if a rephrasing of questions was needed and to assess the interview procedures. To accomplish these objectives, three trial interviews were conducted. The first pilot interview was with an individual who had been involved in negotiating a contract with maintenance and food service employees in a large uni- versity. The second and third trial interviews were with persons who are responsible for all employee relations in their community colleges and who are responsible for negotiating contracts with faculty and other unions on their campuses. The trial interviews were tape recorded. Revisions were made in the interview guide after each of the first two pilot interviews. These changes were based on post interview comments, reactions and suggestions made by the interviewees and an analysis of the tapes by the investigator. The need to probe some responses was evident during the pilot interviews and occasionally it was necessary to deviate slightly from the structured format to maintain rapport with the inter- VieWee or to clear up misunderstandings in communication. After the third pilot interview was completed, Dr - (2 Keith Groty analyzed the interview guide and the 125 responses of the participants to determine if the questions elicited the information needed to accomplish the purpose of the study. The questions were judged appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the study. The Collection of Data The initial contact with the individuals iden- tified as appropriate to participate in the study was made via a letter signed by Dr. C. Keith Groty. The purpose of the letter was to introduce the investigator and to state the general purpose of the study. A reply form and a stamped self-addressed enve10pe were enclosed for these persons to indicate whether they would or would not participate in the study (Appendix B). The reply forms were returned within ten days and all of the respondents indicated that they would participate in the study. Four of the replies were from the addressees of the introductory letter. Two replies were not from the addressees but from other persons in the same institution to whom the letter had been referred. The investigator contacted the respondents by telephone to: (l) establish a time and date for either an in-person or telephone interview, (2) explain the specific purpose of the study, (3) state the anonymous nature of the study and (4) request permission to tape record the interview. 126 After the purpose of the study was explained to the two individuals who were not the original recipients of the introductory letter, they indicated that they were not knowledgeable enough to effectively participate in the investigation. They referred the investigator to a more knowledgeable person in their institution who ultimately participated in the study. All participants gave their permission to have the interviews tape recorded. The interviews were conducted between April 3, 1972, and May 1, 1972. The average time for all inter- views was sixty-nine minutes. The two in-person inter- views averaged eighty-two minutes and the four telephone interviews averaged sixty-two minutes. The Presentation of Data A descriptive approach was used to present the findings of this study. Descriptive research, Involves the description, recording, analysis, and interpretation of the present nature, composition, or process of phenomenon. The focus is on pre- vailing conditions, or how a person, group or thing behaves or functions in the present.278 This technique was selected for several reasons. The study was exploratory in nature. A review of the literature revealed that it focused on a problem area which apparently has not been thoroughly investigated. 278John W. Best, Research in Education (EngleWOOd Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaII, Inc., I939), p. 12. 127 General description is characteristic of the early stages of work in an area where the significant factors have not been isolated, and where perhaps one would not have the means for measuring them if they were identified. It is, therefore, a method of exploration.279 Because of the recent emergence of faculty unionism.into higher education, the factors that admin- istrators may need to consider as they prepare for negotiations and participate in the collective bargaining process have not been completely identified. Furthermore, quantitative studies on the unionemanagement relationship in colleges and universities, that might have been used as a foundation for this investigation, have not been undertaken. Because of these factors and the exploratory nature of the study, the descriptive technique was selected to present the findings. The advantages of descriptive research were also suited to the need for this study. Descriptive studies often: (1) provide practical and useful information for planning; (2) alert educators to trends and possible future events; and (3) facilitate an understanding of what is taking place in areas where processes and prac- tices are continually changing.280 The need for this 279Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods of Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p.275. 280Van Dalen, Understanding_Educational Research, p. 184. 128 study was stated as not only attempting to fill a void in an area where general understanding was incomplete but also to respond to the immediate concerns that adminis- trators may have about collective bargaining. These needs coupled with the infancy of collective bargaining in higher education seemed to fit the advantages associated with a descriptive study. Due to the aforementioned reasons, a descriptive approach was used to analyze the data in this study. A statistical treatment of the findings was not attempted because of the nature of the data and the size of the population. A complete transcription of each interview was not made; however, extensive notes were taken and frequently quotations were transcribed from the inter- viewee's responses. Next, two independent judges were selected and familiarized with the interview guide.281 These judges listened to twelve randomly selected five-minute segments of the tape recordings which comprised 14 per cent of the interview time. One judge checked the researcher's objectivity in recording information from the tape recordings by comparing the notes and quotes taken by the investigator 281The judges were Ph.D. candidates in the Depart- ment of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University. They were selected because of their familiarity with the study and collective bargaining in higher education. 129 with the responses of the interviewees. This judge agreed with one researcher on 94.9 per cent of the notes and quotes taken. Another judge ascertained whether the researcher had recorded all of the important information from the tape recordings as it related to the purposes of the study. This judge took notes from the tapes and com- pared them with the notes of the investigator. There was very high agreement between the information selected by the researcher and this judge. The final step in analyzing the data was to classify the notes and quotes according to the purposes and dimensions of the investigation. The data pertinent to each purpose were studied and verbal descriptions were used to present the results of the analysis. An attempt was made to indicate areas of commonality among the responses of the participants and to present the range of opinion when they expressed different viewpoints. Quotations were used to illustrate various views and to highlight key points. Summary The study included six administrators from six public four-year colleges and universities that had negotiated and operationalized a written contract with a faculty union prior to December 31, 1971. All of the 130 participants had been on a team which had bargained at least one contract with the faculty union in their institution and they had been involved in the prepar- ations preceding the negotiations. Telephone and in- person interviews were conducted to collect information. The interview guide consisted of questions that were based on the purposes of the study. A descriptive approach was used to analyze and present the findings. The information that was obtained by using this research design is presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of this study. In the first section, the role of state governmental agencies, institutional governing boards and presidents in the preparations for collective bargaining and during the negotiations process is pre- sented. The organizational procedures used in the prepar- ations for negotiations and during the bargaining process are reported in the second section. In the final section the recommendations of the interviewees regarding organi- zational procedures that may be useful for universities entering into a collective bargaining relationship with a faculty union are presented. The Role of State Governmental Agencies, Governing anrds and Presidents A purpose of this study was to ascertain the role of state governmental agencies, institutional governing boards and presidents in the preparations for negotiations and during the process of bargaining with a faculty 131 132 union. The purpose of this section is to report the findings related to this purpose of the study. State Governmental Agencies In Table 4 the participation of state or city governmental agency personnel in the preparations for collective bargaining and during the negotiations process is summarized. These governmental personnel were from offices with responsibilities for state employee labor relations or for budgetary matters. The participation of state agency personnel in the preparations for negotiations varied Considerably in the institutions studied. The most direct involvement occurred in a state system of higher education where an individual from a state office of employee relations was active in coordinating the efforts of the group which pre- pared for negotiations. Other personnel from this office occasionally participated in the preparations for collec- tive bargaining as did individuals from the state budget office. In three schools there were some meetings between institutional and governmental representatives prior to negotiations. Two participants reported that state agency personnel did not participate in the preparations for collective bargaining. The involvement of state governmental personnel tended to increase during the negotiations process. The 133 .oouooc as: omwuuodxo uwocu cos: ocOwuswuouoc :4 vousm«u«uusm meas:o«msuuo oUwuuo uouusn on» vcs mucous was» EOuu ouonEoE umsum .Esou ucwcfisuusn on» new :sEmoxOQo wowcu on» us: ousuo onu cw occausaou oomoHdeo new onnwocoauou mucous ousuo s scum o>wusucououmou < .cOMss muasusu on» o» ousa on pauou cows: uouuo Aswucstw onu usauusuou :quwH onwmuso cs. co>wu as) newuuuwumcw one .uowmno0a o.c0wusuwuu:w onu mn mucusauwuon ousuo no“: uoomsuowo as) nodusuchwcs muasusm .ouwuuo uouusn ousuu on» was sawusuwunsw osu Scum oo>wusucououdou coo3uon couuouuo cogs chausuasmsou .Esou usacfisuuso or» we cs6 amoxonu woasu onu ma unawuswuouoc uo amouuoud on» no ooEMOucw ouo: scaususom nosuar no uoHaoucsnu osu mo oufiuuo on» scum o>wusucom noudou s ucs moomoHdeo uwdosd mo ucwcwsuusn o>auuoaaou uOu oanwmcoawou mucous ousuu one .co«cs muasusu on» sud: unwuswuouoc ms: muwmuo>fic= or» ussu uusuucou onu wo ousus: on» uo v05u0u:« ms: uouosm on» mo ssoudm one .oxwuum cu copauoo coda: muauusu ocu we .coxsu on canons usru noduaoOQ ocu ucwcusuou outsofisu new cos cums: onu ou ocss on oasou saws: wouwo mswucscwu on» osmsuouou ou mcoHuswuouoc mo mousuu souusa or» ucwusc maucosuouu oouusu Icou ouoz mouauuo o.uocuo>ou ocu css uouosm osu wo :sousm one .co«cs muasusw ozu ou ocsE on cauou nous) wouwo aswucscwu osu omsumwc ou Esou ucmcwsuuso on» ma mCOwuswuouoc cw mauso uouusucou ms: uouosm osu uo ssousm one .uzsa ousuo saw: oussuuouus :« use auoououm ouo: oceanswuouoc honour: unsuuqu o» ooomonEo owansa ma unmeasuusn o>wuuoaaou uOu oaowocoaoou mucous ousun s mo oo>wususououdou sud) uoe esou ucwcwsuusn on» no nausea: uuououm usacwsuusm o>wuuo~aou on» cw cumusmwuHuusm mucou< AsusoE:uo>ou mqu\ousum .soss: any cououuo on 3:8 :02: note «3833 23 9: nousuou .ouuuwu ruse dash: s concao>oo vouuuo ousuu on» ups suausuwuucw on» souu so>wususomounom .ucOMuswuouoc new ucowususaoum ocu cw vousmwuwuusa maascOwosuuo mucous was» scum uuonfioa unsum .o:0wuswuouos Haw uouseoud ass» dsouu on» we Monaoa o>wuus as as) ousus on» :w unawusaou oomOHQIU uOu oanwocoamou mucous ousun s aouu u>wususooouoou t .:0w:s munausu osu ou oosE on oasou ass» usuuo «swusssww on» usacusuou muau osu ass newusuwuucw onu uo uo>wusu Isoooumou coozuon ouos ouo: ucofiuosuowo .umwmnnod u.c0wusuwuucw onu mo mucusauquH ousuo saw: ooousu town as: sawusueco«:= muasusm .ousuu osu cw moomoneo uwansm mo unendsuuso o>wuuoaaou new oanwoCOQmou mucous ousum on» on 00tw>oum as) unawusEHONcM assosus .mucous ousuo s Eouw mo>wususououmou ma unawuswuouoc Mew mCOwus lusmoud on» :w cumusdauwuusa on us: ouona .mucous ousuo s Baum mo>wususomoumou mo unawuswuouoc wen «sodas ausdoum osu cw newusmwuwuusa on as: ouosa .noomoHaso uwansn ma ucwsasuusn o>wuuoaaou uOu oanwocomuou mucous ousus s Baum uo>wusus0uounou sud: .o3sa ousuu ass unawuswuouo: cu auosusOumnss ouuosuuuc Esou uswcusuusn on» no sponsoz unawuswuouoz nan acowususdoum ozu cw sawusmwuwuusm mucou< Asusolcuoaou mum0\ousum A acousuwuncu .uuououa ususwsuusn o>wuuo~aou Gnu aw ocs unawuswuouo: uOu ucoaususmoum on» :4 caduceus AsucOICHO>ou muqu\ousuu mo coausawuwuusm 0:» uo muslin. (1:. v Handy 134 most direct participation was still in a state system of higher education where an individual from a state office of employee relations was the chief spokesman for the bargaining team. Other personnel from this agency and the state budget office occasionally participated in the negotiations process when their expertise was needed by the bargaining team. In four institutions, state agency personnel were more involved in the bargaining process than they had been during the preparations for negotiations. The greatest increase in participation occurred in one uni- versity which contacted the Bureau of the Budget to dis- cuss the compensation proposal which could be offered the union. Toward the latter part of negotiations, representatives from this institution were in frequent contact with the Bureau of the Budget and representatives of the governor's office to receive additional guidance regarding the financial offer which could be made to the faculty union. The governor's office and legislators were also contacted for guidance regarding the position which should be taken by the institution if the faculty decided to strike. The increased contact with state agency personnel in two institutions was primarily to determine what the universities budget might be during the forthcoming fiscal year and in one case "an outside limit" regarding 135 the compensation proposal was provided by the city. One university which did not have any contact with state governmental personnel prior to bargaining did inform the Bureau of the Budget regarding the nature of the con- tract that the university was attempting to negotiate with the faculty union. Three participants made comments that indicated that they were opposed to state governmental involvement in the collective bargaining process. According to one individual representatives from a state governmental agency exerted too much control in the preparations for collective bargaining and during the negotiations process. And unfortunately they were not receptive to involving administrators from the institution's multi-campuses during the preparations for negotiations. In another university the state government was attempting to exert greater control of the institution through the collective bargaining process. The inter- viewee stated: While we coordinate with them, we meet with them and keep them informed, we have refused to let them on the bargaining team. We're trying to avoid the kin of open break in the decision-making process that may result from collective bargaining which may allow for state intervention. 136 Institutional Governing Boards In Table 5 the participation of institutional governing boards in the preparations for collective bar- gaining and during the negotiations process is summarized. The most direct involvement occurred in a uni- versity where the group which prepared for negotiations included an "observer" from the institution's governing board. This person was also a liaison between this group and the board. In another institution a sub-committee of the board maintained liaison with the group which was responsible for preparing for the bargaining process. Although these two groups met to discuss what they con- sidered as non-negotiable issues, the interviewee char- acterized the participation of the sub-committee as "not heavy." In a third university the board's involvement prior to negotiating the first contract with the faculty union was summarized by the interviewee: At almost every board meeting prior to negotiations, a status report would be prepared and a certain kind of ultimate policy questions were [sic] submitted to the board for their consideration. Like, would you take a strike? What do you think should be the range of negotiable issues? What's the outside salary limit? Those kind of questions, but not a lot of detail. This board's role changed slightly during the preparations for the negotiation of the second contract: 137 .muououm ucwcwsuusn o>wuuoaaou .oGOwuswuouo: hum ocoflususaoum on» as oo>~o>cw soc us: ousoo ucwcuo>ou one on» as oo>ao>sw uoc as) ouson ucacuo>ou one o .ucw s.m>sos soc. ms oouwuouususcu ms3 newsuuso o>wuuoaaou ucwusc ooowsu ouoz sows: ucoao>ao>cw uwonu .uo>o30: .uououw muwaom mousse muwaom stusuu ousumao o» fisou muwaom ousuowo on ocowusmuouos nun ucwusaoum ham or» cos Esou ucwcwsuuso osu saw: uoa ouson oaowocoamou ms: ussu duouu on» cue: uofi ousoo ucwcuo>ou ocu no oouuwsEOUIQum woosoEuu30u < ucwsuo>ou osu uo oouuwssounosw noososnu50w < m ..ouocuo>oo uo ousom on» ma . .ucoUwooum on» 0» uses“ Hauucwcsos 0: ms: ouora .ucwcommsn seas: muasusw osu saw: acoeoouus cs cusou 0» ms: ass: nuo. mahou Assocou cw. unocwmoum muwuosuss on» cousuoaoc ouson qucuo>ou ore on» ma coauONcw ms: ouson uswcuo>ou one s .ucoowoouo on» ma cumucouus .ucocwmoud on» ma cOwucouus uwosu Rhona ou unusoun ouo) ass» occauwuom ou unusoun ouoz ussu usowuwmom ucwcwsuusn ucwcwsuuso oo3ow>ou ousoo unwcuo>ou or& was moMUMHoa oo3ow>ou ouson ucwcuo>ou one m ..oo3oHa0u on oasoso uHom mos» nonwaouwsu osoun oEoo posed auso cums more .oaou o>wuus maoeouuxo as us) we msm pose H .oaou o>wuus cs .uuse o>wuus .chmuswuouoc u0u unawususmouo on» cs oomsam ouson H50: osOwuswuouoc mo nousum usausc sundae oouwswa muo>u coow>oum ouson Housa on» ucwuso uscu peso oo3ow>uouc« one ucwsuo>ou on» mo muonaoe zooms» no 039- N .muwusdsu couwswa s cw ocOwuswuouos sum cousaoud ass» msouu on» .Esou ucwcwsuuso on» so as: Monaofi ouson fl saw: co>uoo ouson uswcuo>ou on» no uonaoe 4 a ooououm ucwcwsuusm o>auuoH ucOwuswuouoz how oceans suausuauocn taco osu cw cOHusmwuwuusm ousom ucwsuo>oo nusmoum onu cw c0wusawuwuusm ousom ucwcuo>oo .uoououm uswswsuusn o>wuuoaaou ocu cw pus ocOwusfiuouoc nun usowususaoum on» pg souson uswcuo>ou HsGOMusuwuosw no cowusnwuwuusm on» no musEEso wusunou s ouOMon Hs>oudas o>wu cu con measuosou uns unawuswuouoc :.uoaau Has us no unwou ms: usn: mauusxo Joan o: . . . .oEHu onu Has Ewn o» couuoaoun dsouu menu usn .oCOwuswuouo: HOu nonsmoud usnu msouu mo ooouuoum on» no coau0mcw us: unoueooum one onu mo sonsoa s uoc ms: ucouwuoum one o .nasn0doua noucsou duao>ou 0» ans oasoomoun cues: 3oe>ou on asou unwnwsuusn onu nae) maunosuouu uofi usnu asou muwaom .oGOwus on» uo sonEoE o>wuus as as) non .Esou use Iwuouoc new nonsmoud usnu mucuu Inwsuusn on» No uonEoE s yon ms) ucouwmoum one onu uo nonfioe s ms3 unocamoum one m ..uswou o.uw ouon: ucs unwnu onu no Hoow s uou on once so osoanouo mox so mHHsGOMosuuou ucoowooum onu nae: uoa asou unmeasuusn on» .mGOAus hum nsfiooxoma wownu one .asou muwuom no use uwuouo: no“ pousdoud nuwnz duouu onwsuusn onu no sonfioe s yon as: unoowooud one onu mo sonaoa s ms) unouwmoum one v .oooosaaw o>a0oou ou oucsuwsu HsGOMuwocs cocoon .oCOwumeQ ucwcwsuusn Esou unenwsuusn onu non) nsauoxomo wownu 3ow>ou Ou unawuswuouoc hum unawususdoua on» now: maucosuouu uofi usn asou unwcwsuusn so on» uOu oanwmcommou ms: nuwns moouu mowaom onu mo nonsofi s you as: unouwmoum one on» now: maucosuouu uoa ucouwmoud one n .oasaOQOud uoucuou m0ao>oo on pas masoomoud cues: nouumwo ou Esou unwcwsuusn on» now: maucosuouw uoE nuwnz Esou muwaoa on» we uonEoB s as: ucoowooum one .nOwoooo ucwnwsuusn youwm on» ucwusu mesou noon 0» nuoomu s o>wu two usn Esou ucwcwsu .chAuswuouon uOu pousdoum nonn3 nusn on» no nonsos s act as: ucouwooum one dsouu on» «o Honaoa s as) ucoowmoua one m .unouwmoum onu now) .uocooc .oco«uswuouoc sow us. uoe Esou uanwsuusn one .Esou ucwnwsu ucwusdoum new oanwmnOQmou os3 nowna dsouu lusn onu we nonEoE s you as: unouwuoum one on» now: mHHsQOwosuuo uofi ucoowmoum one H ouououm unmeasuusn unawuswuouoz nun unawus cumuuuwumnm o>wuuoauou on» c« newusmwuwuusm Aswunouwooum nusmoum on» pg nodusnwuwuuso aswucouwooum .soououd use anusuusn o>wuuoaaou on» cw ass usuauswuouoc sou uncaususdouu on» c« mucoswooua no cowusowuwuusm on» «o mussess <><>< x = regular team member; §_= chief spokesman. aThe team that negotiated the second contract in this institution included a vice provost, comptroller, two deans, director of libraries and the institution's legal counsel. bA campus president, but not the president of the institution. cIncludes individuals holding the title of Provost and Dean of the Faculty, Vice President or Vice Chancellor. dIncludes individuals holding the title of Associ- ate, Assistant or Assistant to. eIncludes individual holding the titles of Treasurer or Budget Director. 151 presidential assistants were on three teams and attorneys were on two teams. Another institution had two vice chancellors on the team who were also attorneys. Generally, the negotiating teams included indi- viduals who had job responsibilities related to academic, personnel and financial administration. In addition to the bargaining team, other administrators were indirectly involved in negotiations. In four universities, policy teams were established to meet with the bargaining team to evaluate union proposals and to develOp counter pro- posals. The policy teams usually included individuals who participated in the preparations for negotiations. Two schools did not establish regular policy teams, but their bargaining team did meet with other administrators during negotiations. The size of the bargaining teams ranged from two to eight members. The university which began negotiations with a two-member team ultimately added two persons and the vice president for academic affairs occasionally participated in bargaining. The interviewee said of the two-member team, "I found that it was very difficult to spell each other off and alleviate some of the pressure that develops." Furthermore, "when we get to the crucial stage,I usually bring in the vice president for academic affairs and he begins doling out the concessions." In 152 this institution an attorney occasionally participated in negotiations, but was not a regular team member. In two other universities attorneys occasionally participated in negotiations, but were not regular members of the bargaining team. However, in one of these insti- tutions the attorney replaced the associate dean of arts and sciences as the chief spokesman during the last two weeks of negotiations. According to another respondent the size of the regular team was five, however, "we'd bring people in and out depending on what the issues were," such as personnel from the state budget office, the institution's personnel staff and on one occasion, a campus president. In all of the universities studied the chief spokesman coordinated the preparations for negotiations and in four schools they had previously been involved in bargaining with non-faculty unions. A fifth team had a member who had been the chief spokesman in negotiations with non-faculty unions, but this interviewee reported that, "when I would say I bargained eight contracts with the janitors, that somehow never equated to equal one contract with the AAUP." In a sixth institution a member of the team had been a former labor union official. Staffing The employment status and responsibilities of individuals hired to assist in the preparations for 153 negotiations and during collective bargaining when the institutions studied negotiated their first contract with a faculty union are reported in Table 10. Only two universities hired individuals on a full- time basis to assist in the preparations for negotiations and to serve on the bargaining team. Attorneys were employed more frequently than other individuals; however, all but one was from a law firm which had been retained prior to faculty unionization for the purpose of provid- ing legal counsel to the institution. The participation of these individuals in the preparations for negotiations varied. One attorney was retained on a full-time basis to coordinate the efforts of the group that prepared for negotiations. Another attorney was active in the preparations for negotiations and assisted in writing a contract which was ultimately presented to the faculty bargaining agent. In a third school a legal counsel occasionally provided advice to the group which prepared for negotiations. A full-time labor relations specialist was employed in one school for approximately one year to assist in the preparations for bargaining. A consultant was hired in another school to develop and participate in a training program for the bargaining team and the personnel who were preparing for negotiations. 154 .cowuwusu as: uusuucou onu nouws cowuwmoa muanusw s co>au ms: asscw>acnw mane n .ucacwsuusn o>wuuo~aou ouONon Hoocuou asuoa nae: unadusu taunt“ onu coca>oum csn ccs cOausNHGOAG: muasusu o» quum cocwsuou coon csn ccs «Esau Isa fiouw ouoz omocuouus ooones .wwsum m.c0wusu«uoce on» so ms3 uomasa sense oEeusHst s .cOMuauwuocw menu cw comedafio ouos noncomuoa 02 o . .mc0wuswuouoc umaaswuodm .Esou ucecasuuso onu no sonsos new cousaoum usnu Quouu on» we qufiOfi nucosmonEm onceusaom s ms: umwmswuodm occausnou nonsa one s ms: uneaseuomm unawusaou noose one ouaunaasm Moosq m .oussucsa .oususamwuou on» uusuucou ucfiuusuc cw unamos Ou cocoon nun: muwouo>wcs onu uo wasnon co coannOH con3 maco ccs :c0audouxo: as us mooUOud ccs munwuoos unencsnm unseasuusnuouu unmeasuusn on» c“ cousQAUAuuse monu0uus one onu mo oEOm Ce cousdeAuusd mocu0uus one suonasuom monuOuus q .Esou unecfisuusn onu cas mc0wuseuouoc ecu uceusaoum ms: usnu usouu onu new Esquud unduesuu s aw ousQAUAuusd ccs mo~o>oc ou couwn ms: unsuasmcou one unsuasmcou .mCOwusauouoc new cousa .Esou unmeasuusn onu uoum usnu mucuu on» no muHOMuo onu ucousc new cosmoxOQm uoanu onu ms: monuouus one tachoOu Hum oanemcoamou ms: monuOuus one shonesuom monocuud m .ucacwsuusn uo mxoo: o3» pose on» uceusc cosmoxoam wonnu m.Esou unanasuusn onu oEsuon cns Esou .oCOAuswuouoc qu couscous moaned onu co nonEoE s ms: mocuouus one usnu docuu onu no nonEoE s ms: monuOuus one shoemsuom monuOuun m ..uofiouou 3s 3 33d 3 flash uusuucou onu uo cco onu cuszouc mmououd .ucacdsuusn mo ucoEoucoEEou oaautuusa unacwsuusn on» Ca cousQAUwuusd monMOuus one onu souus deans couwn uoc ms: monuOuus one s so cone: mocuOuu4 a moououm chAus mausum comonEm nodusuaumcH unecasuusm o>wuuoaaou on» Ca newusaauwuusm uwuouoz new anewususdoum onu ca nodusdauwuusm unoemoHQEm coouom . . chAusauouoc sum mcohususdoud on» on uoaoos Ou .un«c«suusn o>euuoaaou unwusc ccs couen ocoouod uo onusuo unoEmoHdeo cos moauwaanamCOQmou on» mo mussesm