A more complete presentation of these specific results is available here.
The AAUP-UC Governing Board for 2021-2022 is:
Governing Board Officers:
Governing Board Members-At-Large:
We also want to take a moment to thank Jim Smith, whose second term as Secretary ends on June 30, 2021. During his four years as secretary, he set a standard of excellence that we all admire. We would also like to thank Tom Diana and Chris Riddle, whose terms end on June 30, 2021, for their service on the Governing Board. We really appreciate their dedication to the union and their efforts to make our union stronger.
The Virgil C. Crisafulli Scholarship for leadership and service in the spirit of the AAUP was awarded to Katherine Hawley, nominated by Sarah Keesom and Tom McCarthy.
The Robert W. Millett Scholarship for Academic Achievement was awarded to Bee Ewing, nominated by Wilfredo Alvarez, David Chanatry, Ariel Gratch, Paul MacArthur, Jeffrey Miller and Patricia Swann.
Congrats to our winners!
Two $1,000 scholarships are awarded annually at the AAUP-UC spring luncheon. AAUP-UC members are invited to nominate worthy Utica College students who:
While any nominee should have both an outstanding academic record and an interest in service to the community, the emphasis is different, with the Millett scholarship highlighting the academic and the Crisafulli highlighting service. A subcommittee of the governing board reviews the nominations and determines the winners of the scholarships.
The Virgil C. Crisafulli Scholarship is awarded each year to a student for demonstrated outstanding leadership in regard to at least one of the AAUP’s core values such as academic freedom, professional responsibility, civic service, humanitarian concern for others, and solidarity with those who share the common goals of equity and voice for all.
The Robert W. Millett Scholarship is awarded each year to a student for academic excellence reflecting the values of the AAUP: respect for open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas; the right to self-expression; integrity in scholarly endeavors; and support for academic freedom.
For 555 days Oregon Tech – AAUP negotiated tirelessly for fair wages, secure benefits, and clearly defined workload expectations, and on Monday, April 26, they were left with no alternative but to strike.
The AAUP-UC governing board has sent a letter to Oregon Tech’s President urging the administration to settle a fair contract with OT-AAUP and put an end to this strike. We stand in solidarity with our AAUP colleagues as they fight for a fair agreement that respects all faculty, and supports Oregon Tech’s larger mission to serve its students and the larger community.
Forty-six years ago, on Feb. 19, 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee has the right to request union representation in any meeting that she or he feels could result in discipline or termination.
If you believe that discipline will result from a meeting with management/administration (in legalese, “an investigatory interview”), you can insist that a union representative be present during this interview. This is part of your “Weingarten Rights,” which references the 1975 United States Supreme Court case NLRB vs. Weingarten. Weingarten Rights apply only to members of a collective bargaining unit and are among the many benefits of having a union.
When an investigatory interview occurs, the following rules apply:
Rule 1) – You must make a clear request for effective union representation before or during the interview. Often an employee may not know at the outset that a meeting with management could lead to discipline. If such a meeting is or becomes an “investigatory interview,” you should assert your right to have a union officer of your choosing present. You cannot be punished for making this request. (Note: If the union representative of your choice is not available in a reasonable time period, it may be necessary for an alternative union officer to represent you.)
A typical Weingarten request would be: “If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I respectfully request that my union representative be present at this meeting. Until my union representative arrives, I choose not to participate in this discussion.” Or you may simply say, “I want my union representative here.”
Rule 2) – After you make this request, the interviewer has three options:
a. Grant the request and delay the interview until your union representative arrives and has a chance to consult privately with you. (Note: The right to representation is the right to effective representation, which translates in this rule as the right to consult privately with the representative before the interview. The union representative should also know what the meeting is about ahead of time so that he/she can effectively advise you.)
b. Deny the request and end the interview immediately; or
c. Give you a choice of: (I) having the interview continue without representation or (II) ending the interview. (Note: It is not wise to choose the first option.)
Rule 3) – If the interviewer denies your request and continues to ask questions, this is an unfair labor practice. You have the right not to answer any questions until you have union representation. You cannot be disciplined for refusing to answer the questions, but you are required to sit there until the supervisor terminates the interview. Leaving before this happens may constitute punishable insubordination in some cases.
The AAUP-UC represents all members of the bargaining unit, both those who pay dues and those who do not, and is obligated to come to your aid without prejudice. If you are summoned to a meeting with a member of administration and discover that it is an “investigatory interview,” assert your right to have a union representative present.