On Tuesday, November 19, your USW staff team met with the administration’s bargaining team to start working out the mechanics of negotiations and to address interim issues, particularly associated with the administration’s “status quo” obligation. This will enable us to hit the ground running once you elect your Bargaining Committee.

Here’s a quick summary of the conversation, with more detail below: 

• The administration agreed to draft proposals (to which your Bargaining Committee will formulate a response) for an interim agreement to address the following issues: promotion raises; FY25 raises for part-time teaching that started or starts after Oct 7, 2024; other supplemental payments; and raises resulting from the conclusion of a provisional period or return from a leave of absence. 

• We pointed out instances in which supervisors or managers have been describing the “status quo” obligation in ways that are inaccurate and possibly unlawful. 

• Both sides committed to collaborating on an efficient process and set of criteria for determining who is included in the bargaining unit, and both sides recognized that some apparently simple solutions (such as supervisory exclusion based solely on having two or more subordinates) are not consistent with the law. 

• Negotiations for the Collective Bargaining Agreement will likely begin in January, as the administration’s team said they were unavailable in December.
  

The Nature of the “Status Quo” 

Much of the discussion in this meeting revolved around changes to the “status quo.” This topic is a frequent source of confusion, a confusion not helped by statements like the following from the administration’s FAQ: 

“Once the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) has certified the professional and non-professional units, the law requires that the University maintain the ‘status quo’ for wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment while the University and the United Steelworkers (USW) negotiate collective bargaining agreements.” 

This summary of the law is factually inaccurate. In reality, the law prohibits the administration from making unilateral changes to the status quo (or, equivalently, the law permits the administration to make changes to the status quo only with the consent of the Union). It is simply not true that changes to the status quo are categorically prohibited until there’s a Collective Bargaining Agreement in place. Moreover, attempts by supervisors or managers to blame the Union for the administration’s failure to seek the Union’s consent for such changes may cross the line into being unlawful. 

Interim Issues 

Thanks to Pitt staff flagging for us various situations in which they were being told that something was impossible due to the “status quo,” we were able to raise a number of these issues with the administration, who showed a willingness to work out an interim agreement to resolve these issues. Among the issues discussed were the following: 

• Wage increases connected to promotions (both those that are in process and future promotions while negotiations are ongoing; promotions that were announced and decided on prior to October 7, 2024 can already be implemented) 

• Wage increases for part-time teaching for the 2024-2025 fiscal year (except for staff who started teaching before October 7, 2024, whose pay should already have been increased) 

• Supplemental payments, including new part-time teaching assignments, new projects, and filling in for absent coworkers 

• Retention offers for employees with a competing offer from another employer 

• Wage increases associated with someone reaching the end of their provisional period or returning from a leave of absence (after October 7, 2024) 

The administration will be drafting proposed language to address these issues, which we will review with your Bargaining Committee to formulate a response. Careful review is necessary to ensure that there aren’t undesirable side-effects and to ensure that we can monitor the implementation of any interim agreement. 

We drew the administration’s attention to two potentially unlawful unilateral changes to the status quo, which they agreed to look into: ceasing to permit early dismissals before holidays, and refusing to offer ½ day additional vacation for giving to the United Way campaign. 

We also raised the issue of the long list of individuals who were not included on the list of eligible voters but might properly be in the bargaining unit (or vice versa). While both sides recognize that a simple rule of thumb (like “anyone with two or more subordinates is a supervisor and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit”) doesn’t reflect the requirements of the law, both sides committed to finding a workable set of criteria to make these determinations and resolve any areas of dispute. 

The Administration’s Bargaining Team 

The administration brought their full bargaining team to this preliminary meeting. This is the team representing the administration in negotiations: 

Jazmyn Barrow (outside counsel, Ogletree Deakins) 
Tonia Suber (Assistant Vice Chancellor of Employee and Labor Relations) 
Jeffrey Gordon (Associate Legal Counsel, Office of University Counsel) 
Deborah Kollar (Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration and Human Resources Management and Policy, Health Sciences) 
Denise McCloskey (Associate Vice Provost for Business Administration, Office of the Provost) 
Beth Ann Deutsch (Employee and Labor Relations Manager, Office of Human Resources) 

We also discussed bargaining dates, and the administration said they’d send us their availability. We made clear that we will make ourselves available whenever they are able to meet to negotiate, and they indicated that their schedules are already full through the end of the year. So, our first full bargaining session will likely be in January. 

In solidarity, 

Bernie Hall, Director, USW District 10
Matt Nader, Staff Representative, USW District 10
Nate Kilbert, Associate General Counsel, USW
Robin Sowards, Technician, Collective Bargaining, Benefits, & Research, USW