An arbitration hearing was held on  November 24, 2009 concerning the University of Toledo (UT) Administration's new Research Active Policy. Briefs including Reply Briefs have been submitted to the Arbitrator by both the UT-AAUP and the Administration and are available on-line (Visit: UT-AAUP Post Arbitration Brief, UT-AAUP Reply Brief   - Administration Post Arbitration Brief,  Administration Reply Brief).

The latest Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was signed in December 2008 by the UT Board of Trustees (BOT) and the UT-AAUP. Two months later in early 2009, the UT Administration announced a new Research Active Policy for the assignment of teaching load based on research. This new policy was the basis for the arbitration hearing.

The UT-AAUP was represented at the arbitration by attorney Amy Zawacki of Allotta, Farley & Widman, Don Wedding, UT-AAUP Grievance Chair, and Mary Jane Erard, Executive Director UT-AAUP. The UT-AAUP presented several faculty witnesses including Marc Gerstein of Art, Glenn Sheldon of University College, and Don Wedding.

The Administration proposed the Research Active Policy at the bargaining table during the 23 months of negotiations (January 2008-December 2009) of the current CBA, but repeatedly refused to define it. The CBA signed by the BOT in December 2008 does not include or define Research Active.

The Administration is using the new Research Active Policy to assign teaching load based on research activity instead of Professional Activity & Service as defined in Article 10 of the CBA.Professional Activity & Service have been defined by Article 10 in five consecutive CBAs negotiated over the past 15 years including the CBA negotiated and signed by the UT-AAUP and the UT-BOT in December 2008. Research Active has never appeared in any CBA.Professional Activity is defined in the CBA and includes professional criteria applicable to the entire spectrum of academia ranging from art and music to biology, chemistry, and physics.

Don Wedding testified at the arbitration hearing that the UT-AAUP is not opposed to Research Active, but the Union wants the term to be defined at the bargaining table and approved by the faculty. During the negotiations, the Administration  refused over and over to define Research Active and finally dropped it only to resurrect it again almost immediately after the latest CBA was signed.

The Administration argued to the Arbitrator and in its briefs that Article 10 is illegal under the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3345.45 passed in 1993. The Administration's argument during the arbitration hearing and in its briefs is that ORC 3345.45 precludes workload from being negotiated and that Article 10 is illegal. It is the UT-AAUP position that ORC 3345.45 expressly refers to instructional load (teaching) and directs the Ohio Board of Regents (OBOR) with all state universities and colleges to develop instructional workloads for full-time and part-time faculty. This was done by OBOR in 1993, by the UT-BOT in a specific resolution in 1994, and by the BOT signing of the first CBA in 1994. The Administration is now saying that ORC 3345.45 applies to all workload and trumps 15 years of workload provisions defined by Article 10. The Administration is arguing that Article 10 is invalid even though the UT-BOT has approved five CBAs containing Article 10, all followed by faculty and administrators for over 15 years.

This arbitration is not about research. The UT-AAUP strongly supports research by the faculty. However, the UT-AAUP opposes the Jacobs' Administration unilaterally imposing a Research Active Policy without Union and faculty participation, particularly a policy that uses undefined research as the primary if not the sole means of measuring faculty contribution and assigning teaching load.  Furthermore, ORC 3345.45 pertains to faculty teaching, not research activity.  The Jacobs' Administration is using ORC 3345.45 to increase faculty research.  This is the opposite of what is set forth in ORC 3345.45 and contrary to the intent of the Ohio Legislature in 1993.