Unionization In The Classroom: GW's Response To Organizing Part-Time Faculty


Back to Index

FEEDBACK (printer-friendly version)(printer-friendly version (PDF))
Updated: July 25, 2005

We welcome your feedback on this issue. Please continue to E-mail your comments and questions to gwnews@gwu.edu. We will post more of your input here as we receive it.

1.)  One inquirer asks why the University is disputing the legitimacy of the vote, stating that “the right to organize has not been voided nor was it restricted to the filthy rich.” He believes that the University’s actions give an impression that the University does not like organized workers. Another faculty member writes stating that he believes a union could address a number of concerns he has regarding salary and benefits for part-time faculty. He also believes that the University “has seized on the decision to allow two non-employee votes to be cast” as an “excuse to avoid recognizing the union.”

The University recognizes that reasonable people may disagree as to whether unionization is in the best interests of the part-time faculty, and we respect those whose views may be different on this issue than ours. The answer ultimately is in the hands of those eligible to cast ballots, and we all should agree that all eligible faculty should have the right to cast ballots. That is precisely what is at issue now.

The University has consistently stated that it respects the right of employees to decide whether it is in their best interests to be represented by a union. The University has recognized unions after there have been full and fair elections by those who are eligible to vote. There are currently several unions on campus representing a variety of workers, and we strive to maintain good relations with those unions. Indeed, we believe that we have had, and continue to have, a good working relationship with them.

With respect to the representation election for part-time faculty, the University believes that there was not a full and fair election, because, as Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald Lehman explained in his memorandum to part-time faculty on June 29, 2005, the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to permit the “two non-employee votes” means that a significant number of similarly situated part-time faculty members were disenfranchised. The University is not asking that the two votes be discarded, only that the others be given the same right. Remember that only 10 fewer votes were cast against unionization, and the University has an obligation to the entire part-time faculty community to make every effort to ensure that the ultimate decision as to whether to unionize is made by all part-time faculty eligible to vote.

2.) An inquirer asks whether part-time faculty may oppose the selection of this particular union to represent them, stating that the union has “no experience working within the university system.” The inquirer also asks certain questions about the eligibility of “contractors” in the event there is a future vote. Finally, the inquirer asks whether GW can address adjunct faculty concerns “that lead to this unfortunate series of events.”

The election that occurred in October 2004 was for part-time faculty to determine whether they wished to be represented by Local 500 of the Service Employees International Union. Ten more part-time faculty who cast ballots voted in favor of being represented by that union, and the National Labor Relations Board subsequently certified the election results. The University is challenging the certification because of its view that not all eligible part-time faculty were permitted to vote. We cannot speculate on what the outcome of that challenge will be, or whether there will be any future vote.

However, as the University noted in its answer to Question 4 in the “Frequently Asked Questions” portion of this Web site, an election cannot be “undone” easily if those in the unit change their minds. In some situations, employees can file what is called a “decertification petition.” If the petition is signed by 30 percent of those eligible to be included in the unit, the NLRB will order an election over whether the employees in the unit still want to be represented by the union. A majority of those voting must choose to no longer be represented by the union for the decertification to prevail.

Finally, the University understands that some part-time faculty may have concerns relating to their employment, and the University would welcome a dialogue directly with part-time faculty. However, once the petition for election was filed by Local 500, the University became prohibited from having direct discussions with part-time faculty regarding material changes to their terms and conditions of employment.

3.) GW has received questions regarding whether part-time faculty will be forced to join the Service Employees Union if a majority of those voting elect to unionize, or whether they will have the option to decline membership in the union.

Labor contracts in Washington, D.C. generally have a union security clause which requires union membership as a condition of continued employment. For more background information regarding this issue, see our FAQ answers on this Web site .

4.) Relating to Number 3, above, a question was raised as to what state labor laws would apply in the event a majority of the part-time faculty vote to unionize, given the University’s geographic position in two jurisdictions that do not have right-to-work laws (D.C. and Maryland), and one that has a right-to-work law (Virginia). (A “right-to-work” law means that an employee may not be forced to become a member of a union as a condition of employment.) For example, what laws would a part-time faculty member be subjected to if he or she lives in Virginia and teaches in D.C., or lives in Maryland and teaches in Virginia?

The applicable law is that of the state in which you are employed, not the state in which you live. Therefore, regardless of whether you live in Virginia or Maryland, if you teach for GW in D.C., you are subject to D.C.’s jurisdiction. The determination of which jurisdiction would cover employees who work primarily at one of GW’s Virginia campuses would be a matter left up to contract negotiation.

5.) One individual wanted to know if there were any special rules that apply to a part-time faculty member who is also a federal employee.

There is no law precluding a federal employee from being required to join the Service Employees Union as a condition of employment as a part-time faculty member at GW. However, federal government employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement in their federal employment may in fact be precluded from joining another union, pursuant to the terms of that collective bargaining agreement. Federal employees covered by collective bargaining agreement should consult that agreement to determine whether it has any such limitations.

6.) Several part-time faculty members have voiced that they have serious reservations about working with a union and their concern that as a professional employee (both with the federal government and in the private sector) may be restricted from joining as well. These faculty have asked whether there would be an “open shop” alternative for those who do not want to join the union and whether they will be able to still teach as a non-union member.

Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald Lehman, in his memorandum to part-time faculty dated June 29, summarized where things stand regarding unionization, and the University’s decision to not negotiate with Local 500 of the Service Employees International Union. This matter will be the subject of administrative and/or judicial review through established procedures. If, at the end of that review, the certification of the election results is declared valid, union membership and the procedures related to it (i.e., “open shop” v. “union shop”) will be subjects of collective bargaining and any resulting agreement will ultimately require ratification by the members of the collective bargaining unit before being implemented. In other words, whether union membership will ultimately be required pursuant to a union security clause, or will be optional, would be a subject of future collective bargaining.

Regarding the issue of whether the current situation may impact a professional employee’s ability to continue to teach at GW, Question 5 above contains information on the issue of whether federal government employees may continue to teach. That being said, unless and until a collective bargaining process is concluded and any agreement is ratified, there should be no material changes to the employment relationship with GW. We encourage part-time faculty to consult with their primary employer if they have any questions about whether their employer has any policies that may apply to the current situation.

7.) Some individuals have asked about the law firm GW has hired to advise the University in connection with the issue of part-time faculty unionization, and what this outside legal advice is costing the University.

As labor relations law is a complex area, the University has sought guidance from an outside firm to ensure that we comply with applicable law and that a fair and free election is held for the benefit of all part-time faculty. The Service Employees Union also has engaged the services of an outside firm to advise it in this matter, as is its right. We do not believe it appropriate to disclose the amount expended on outside counsel, nor do we think it is relevant to the core issue of whether unionization is in the best interests of our part-time faculty.

NOTE: A follow up question has been asked about our unwillingness to disclose, in response to the previous question, the amount expended on outside counsel for this issue. The questioner also asked whether it was an oversight that we did not identify the law firm the University has retained to provide advice on this issue.

The University’s policy is that it does not disclose fees paid to particular firms. This is a consistent approach, regardless of the issue. As to the name of the firm the University has retained in this matter, it is Krupin O’Brien, LLC.

8.) Some have asked us how GW intends to communicate information from both sides of the issue regarding part-time faculty unionization.

The University is committed to a free and open dialogue on the subject of unionization, and both the University and the Service Employees Union will be disseminating information regarding unionization to part-time faculty. The University also believes it is important to hear from the part-time faculty and other members of the University community on the various issues relating to unionization, and we will be exploring ways to share that perspective, including continuing to post on this Web site feedback from members of the GW community.

9.) Some individuals have raised the issue of what the official rate of remuneration per course is for part-time faculty at GW as compared with other local universities, and whether or not this rate will increase, as there is an assumption that one of the core issues on the part of dissatisfied part-time faculty relates to low pay.

There is no one "official rate of remuneration" per course. While we cannot provide specific data, remuneration at GW, as one inquirer pointed out, is generally competitive with that paid by local institutions of higher education. Because federal labor law prohibits the University from discussing or implementing material changes in terms and conditions of employment once a union files a petition for representation and before the the certification of the union is final, we cannot address the question of possible salary increases. What we can say is that there is certainly no guarantee that unionization will result in greater pay. Finally, while remuneration may be a "core issue" for some, there are a host of reasons beyond remuneration why many part-time faculty choose to teach at GW.