The University of California has been in negotiations with the Coalition of University Employees since July 2003, including formal mediation and impasse ("fact-finding") proceedings with a state-appointed mediator, in an attempt to reach an agreement regarding 2003-04 wages for UC clerical employees and other select issues.
UC has been bargaining in good faith with CUE regarding these issues, and continues to do everything on its side of the bargaining table to reach an agreement -- of course, an agreement requires compromise and good faith from both sides.
The fact-finding phase of negotiations has concluded and the fact-finding panel's recommendations have been delivered to the parties. Both sides have submitted dissenting opinions regarding the report. When the fact-finding panel's recommendations were issued to the parties on Feb. 7, the parties entered a confidential period during which the parties are legally prohibited from publicizing the report for at least 10 days.
The purpose of the confidential 10-day period is to provide the parties an opportunity to privately digest and discuss the panel's report to see if it offers a basis for an agreement. UC met with CUE on Feb. 11 to try to settle the outstanding issues, but unfortunately no agreement was reached.
CUE has repeatedly publicized the fact-finding report during this confidential period, actions which not only
violate both the letter and spirit of collective bargaining laws, including the obligation to bargain in good faith, but also threatens the possibility of an agreement.
The fact-finding panel, which includes a CUE representative, has issued a formal letter of rebuke to CUE
regarding the union's illegal conduct, and the university has submitted a letter to the Public Employment
Relations Board requesting an investigation into the union's repeated violation of HEERA statutes and its duty to bargain in good faith.
Both the union and the university are obliged to bargain in good faith throughout the entire collective bargaining process, a process in which the parties are still engaged, and the university -- despite the union's repeated misconduct -- continues to attempt to meet with CUE representatives over possible resolutions of outstanding differences.
Highlights of the fact-find panel's report and the university's response include the following:
- Health benefits: The neutral fact-finder agreed with UC and recommended no changes to the benefits
program sought by CUE for 2003-04, which UC believes confirms that the university's benefits compares
favorably to other public sector employers with respect to both price and choice, and that its salary-based
approach to health insurance premiums recognizes the challenges faced by lower-paid employees.
- Parking increases: The neutral fact-finder also agreed with UC regarding parking rate increases, which
UC believes recognizes that parking is a self-supporting enterprise and, as such, needs to pay for
expanding facilities out of current revenues. Additionally, parking rate increases also help to fund
alternate transportation, which is especially important for lower paid employees.
- 2003-04 wage increases: The neutral fact-finder agreed with UC that it would not be appropriate to
provide an "across-the-board" retroactive salary increase for all clerical workers for the 2003-04 fiscal
year, due to the fact that the majority of UC employees did not receive an increase during that time.
However, the fact-finder does recommend 2003-04 equity increases for 90 percent of clerical employees,
which the university does not agree with because equity increases for 90 percent of the clerical unit, in
effect, amounts to an across-the-board increase, and doing so would be unfair to the other UC employees
who also had to forego increases for 2003-04 when the state was unable to appropriate funds for UC
salary increases.
Additionally, salaries are permanent expenditures and, therefore, require continuous funding -- they
cannot be predicated on one-time or temporary money. Equity increases for clericals would require the
university to use one-time money for recurring salary expenses and, therefore, cause the university to act
in a fiscally irresponsible manner.
UC has repeatedly demonstrated that when it receives sufficient state salary funding, it is able to offer employees higher, more market-competitive wages. For example:
- In the late 1990s when state revenues were strong and state funding commitments for UC salaries were
met, employees consistently received salary increases that kept better pace with inflation and the market.
- In 2000, UC sought and received an additional $19 million in supplemental state funding for employee
salaries, most of which was used to raise salaries for lower-paid employees such as clericals.
Additionally, in an ongoing effort to recognize employees for their continued dedication and many contributions to the university, especially during California's fiscal crisis and no systemwide raises, UC has undertaken several measures to help recognize all employees -- union-represented and unrepresented alike:
- Adopting a salary-based approach to health insurance premiums so that employees earning less pay less -- something particularly important for lower-paid staff;
- Offering employees deferred retirement income programs for two consecutive years that will boost
employees' future income.
During California's fiscal crisis, UC's state funding has been cut and no funds were appropriated for salary
increases in 2003-04. As a result, faculty and staff salaries have fallen behind market. Fortunately UC's new
compact with the governor provides for increased salary funding, which should allow the university to begin to reverse that trend.
For more detailed information about these negotiations, including the letter of rebuke to CUE and UC's complete response to the fact-finding report, go to:
http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies/labor_relations/CUEfact_find.html
# # #
For more news and information about the University of California, please visit:
www.universityofcalifornia.edu