University responds to OU AAUP accusations of bad-faith bargaining
The university’s bargaining team has responded to AAUP accusations of bad-faith bargaining during 2021’s contract negotiations.
The university’s bargaining team has responded to last week’s accusations of bad-faith bargaining during 2021’s faculty contract negotiations, in which faculty provided evidence that they say proves information about healthcare costs were withheld from them during bargaining, with the following statement:
“Oakland University negotiated in good faith with the AAUP at all times during the 2021 collective bargaining process, as it does in all negotiations with every bargaining unit on campus.
Neither the University nor any member of its bargaining team withheld any information that the AAUP had requested. The 2022 health insurance rates were not finalized until September 10, 2021 – six days after the University and the AAUP had reached a tentative agreement. The AAUP’s claim that it specifically requested preliminary 2022 health insurance rate information from the University in August and September of 2021, and that the University refused to provide that information, is simply not true.
The University provides health insurance rate information every year to all faculty and staff through the open enrollment process and would not have had any reason to withhold that information if the AAUP had requested it.
The administration’s goal is to work productively and collaboratively with the faculty to maximize student success and faculty excellence.”
While this statement was not signed individually by anyone, the university’s 2021 bargaining team consisted of Vice President of Human Resources Joi Cunningham, Assistant Vice President Peggy Cooke, Interim Vice President for Finance and Administration James Hargett, Dean of the School of Nursing Judy Didion and outside legal counsel from law firm Dykema Robert Boonin.
This statement comes in response to the letter sent to President Ora Hirsch Pescovitz and the Board of Trustees (BOT) last Monday from President of Oakland University’s Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU AAUP) Karen Miller in which the AAUP outlined how the results of recent FOIA requests indicate that the university’s bargaining team withheld pertinent information about healthcare costs from faculty during 2021’s contract negotiations.
The evidence the OU AAUP provides in their letter consists of email correspondence between insurance providers and Hargett during bargaining. The extent of that evidence is outlined in italics below.
“On August 18th, 2021, Alan de la Vega, representing Marsh & McLennan Agency, the agency tasked with negotiating health insurance rates with carriers on Oakland’s behalf, emailed an attachment of the 2022 Renewal Report to Oakland administrators including Eric Herppich, Corey Brittingham and Monica Haines. Preliminary Priority Health rates were included in that report among many other pieces of information regarding 2022 rates. A meeting between MMA and Oakland took place on August 19th, 2021 in order to review the report.
On August 18th, 2021, James Hargett emailed Eric Herppich the following, “Where are we with the new health insurance rates for 2022? We usually have something by now even if it is not final rates”. Mr. Herppich’s response on the same day states: “Priority’s prelim rates are 7%, still waiting on BC”.
On August 20th, 2021, Mr. Herppich shared the following message with Mr. Hargett, including an attachment titled “081921 2021-2022 Rates and Contributions for OU”.
The email states: “Here are current and prelim 2022 rates. MMA will continue to negotiate rates…Priority, which is the benchmark, is at a 6.9% bump as of today”. Mr. Hargett’s response on that same day indicates his receipt of the information and shows he had knowledge of both BCBS/BCN and Priority Health preliminary rates. His response reads, in part, “BCN up 15.4%, if that holds, They will not keep too many folks in that plan”.
On August 31st, 2021, Eric Herppich sent an email to Michele Knox and James Hargett that reads: “Rates for 2022 as of now, Priority will not be reducing their rates for 2022 any further. Still waiting to hear from BCBS.” Attached to the email is a spreadsheet named: “081921 2021-2022 Rates and Contributions for OU” which contains specifics on insurance rates. On that same day, James Hargett confirmed receipt of the information in an email to Eric Herppich that stated: “Thanks for the update”.”
The issue of healthcare costs was a main point of contention during 2021’s heated contact negotiations, with the university bargaining team initially pushing for faculty to reach a 20% contribution towards costs by year three of the agreement.
While the faculty have been forthright in asserting their discontent with the university’s behavior during bargaining since negotiations finished, this letter indicated a new point of tension. Miller specifically called for accountability, including an investigation and reassessment of the employment status of multiple administrators.
“These actions constitute bad faith bargaining, violating the Faculty Agreement as well as both the National Labor Relations Act and the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act,” Miller said. “In an ethical and transparent organization, this type of behavior would result in employee termination. James Hargett, whose role in these actions has been clearly demonstrated, and any others found complicit, should not be allowed to continue in any capacity at Oakland University.”
Faculty morale and the relationship between OU AAUP and the university were significantly strained throughout the course of last summer’s negotiations. After sending the letter last Monday, union leadership waited a few days for a response from the university. When that response didn’t come, all OU AAUP members were made aware of the letter outlining bad-faith bargaining via an email early last Friday.
Responses from faculty to the accusation of bad-faith bargaining on behalf of the university thus far have ranged from disappointment and disgust to outrage. With unions representing other on-campus staff set to negotiate new contracts with the university this summer, it is unclear how these accusations from OU AAUP could impact those bargaining sessions.
The Post will continue following up on this story.
Kenneth Mitton • Jan 24, 2022 at 3:28 PM
For those unfamiliar with these matters, here is my understanding of the required information-exchange process from my own experience providing information support to a past bargaining team and then serving on another AAUP bargaining team directly (2015). That understanding is from PERA (Public Employment Relations Act): ” The duty to bargain in good faith also requires an employer to provide the bargaining agent with information that the agent needs to fulfill its responsibilities to negotiate and administer the collective bargaining agreement. This may include information about the employer’s financial condition. ”
(https://www.mml.org/resources/publications/one_pagers/FS%20Public%20Employment%20Relations%20Act%20-%20PERA.pdf)
In preparation for bargaining, the employee’s collective bargaining group provides a sometimes extensive written list of information required of, in this case, Oakland University. This is not surprising or new as a process to either side and indeed OU could anticipate the kinds of information that will be requested and OU staff in some bargaining years have already started organzing the data in anticipation of such requests.
It is expected that should the University think it does not have to provide an item requested, the University will respond to the OU-AAUP’s request with a list of items it does not intend to provide and its reasons why. The information that is the subject of this story was requested and I personally am not aware of any objection to that request from Oakland University as bargaining began. (Note: I was not on the 2021 bargaining team.) That means to me that OU accepted the list of items requested and would provide them whenever they became available during the bargaining process. This is both logical and expected and should be of no surprise to anyone. The University’s bargaining team leader has negotiated several previous times on the BOT’s behalf, and other staff with previous experience supporting OU’s bargaining team served in 2021 as well. This matter of information provision for fair bargaining was not a surprise to either the University or the Union.
The nitty-gritty of the financial components of the contract is only addressed in the last one or two weeks of bargaining. Traditionally this is the only point that the University bargaining team will talk about in that part of the negotiations. It is last minute and that is their strategy for leverage, and they can do that. Thus, it is also well known to the University bargaining team that they will be expected to immediately pass on financial information to the Union bargaining team because of the short time frame mostly forced onto the Union team. This was a deficiency that greatly damages the level of trust that our faculty, and also our other labor sections, may have going forward. Probably not the best time of the early 21st Century for this to occur with the other serious challenges facing our shared institution at this time.
Michael Latcha • Jan 19, 2022 at 12:14 PM
The current state of labor law in Michigan gives every advantage to the employer, and does not allow anything close to fair, balanced negotiations between equals. Yet despite holding all the legal negotiating cards, Oakland deliberately cheated the AAUP. And when caught red-handed, through their very own words, their predictable response is only “no, not true.”
How many times has Oakland cheated in past negotiations?
How many other OU union groups have been cheated out of fair and good-faith negotiations?
Whose idea was it to withhold information that Oakland is legally bound to hand over?
When will those responsible be held accountable?
When will ANY Oakland administrator be held accountable?
Anon • Jan 19, 2022 at 2:18 PM
Administrators will be held accountable only when they face real consequences. Thus far, OU faculty did not even have the guts to vote no confidence in Pescovitz. The lukewarm expression of dissatisfaction in the faculty survey that followed the negotiations equals enabling this malignantly narcissistic administration, and it will keep abusing us.
AnotherOUEmail:( • Jan 19, 2022 at 9:00 AM
The AAUP provided clear data and evidence in its letter (well done to President Miller). There is no attempt to address any of that here. I hope this isn’t the best OU can offer. Without specifically addressing the emails that Miller cites or presenting an alternative narrative/timeline, this response just strengthens the AAUP case. The burden here rests with OU. I don’t think any staff, faculty or student will find it difficult to believe that Ora and those following her directives engaged in misleading tactics. I also doubt anybody who has been around for any amount of time will find it hard to believe that Joi Cunningham was willing to follow regressive marching orders. If Oakland is going to respond seriously (and not purely for the benefit of certain egos) they need to do much better.
Bravo President Miller for fighting this fight and speaking truth.
Anon • Jan 18, 2022 at 11:44 PM
Joi lied repeatedly to media during the negotiations, so it’s no surprise that she’s being dishonest here. She doesn’t even care that we have receipts. I’d call her the world’s most intellectually lazy and inept attorney, but that would be unfair to Rudy Giuliani.
Anon • Jan 19, 2022 at 10:48 AM
Of course, she is being dishonest; thus far, there have been no consequences. When AAUP had a faculty survey, the results did not warrant a no-confidence vote. This lukewarm reaction sends an unmistakable message: the administration can get away with its wrongdoing.
Anon • Jan 18, 2022 at 3:49 PM
Oh, well. These people are causing too many problems in hell: now the nethermost admins have to scramble for an urgent renovation of the Circle 8, commensurate with the ongoing Wilson Hall construction project.
Jerome • Jan 19, 2022 at 8:12 AM
OU Admins your days reigning on high from your ivory towers are limited. It started with Michael Wadsworth enforcing a coercive vaccine mandate, then you shafted the OU faculty in contract negotiations while they were under duress of the pandemic. next “Dr.” Pecsovitz decides to go full french nobility “let them eat cake” and give us a tour of her epic mansion paid for by the university telling us to be thankful rather than leaving us alone for our thanksgiving, this is on the heels of a tuition hike, bragging about a net increase in the university net position in a board meeting, and to top it all off you suspend in person education for a case of the snivels.
OU Admins specifically Wadsworth and Pescovitz get out. you have no respect from students or faculty. the only role you serve is to be the object of ire for a disgruntled group of you constituents.