Tuition Exchange Program Angel Kwolek-Folland Associate Provost for Academic & Faculty Affairs Ileana McCray Sr. Administrative Assistant and UF TEP Liaison
TEP Inc. Institutions Type (Carnegie Groupings)Number% of Category Public Institutions81% Private Institutions Doctoral Research Universities5147% Masters Colleges & Universities27272% Baccalaureate – Arts & Sciences13358% Baccalaureate – Diverse Fields10142% Specialized, Associate & Other41 16%
TEP Inc. Fees Membership Fees Initiation Fee$350 (one-time charge) Annual Dues$500 Participation Fees$35 per year for each Export exchange scholar sponsored.
TEP participating schools in Florida 17 schools participate, 2 public (UF, UNF) University of Florida is the largest TEP participating institution in US, has been a member for 40+ years. 10% of UF TEP applicants receive TEP. UF’s highest number of Exports/Imports (2009) averaged 25/31 respectively.
Five Year Historical Semester Balance for UF Import Semesters Export Semesters +/- Historical Balance (Including ) 1,0831, Year Subtotal Grand Total1,2521,2511
UF Program Financials Charge to UF Employee: $5000/AY Subsidy from Provost’s office (for out- of-state tuition): varies Late fee to UF Employee: $250 UF Undergrad tuition for Fall 2013 for 24 credits/year: $3600
Pros vs Cons for UF Pros Provides a low cost tuition option for faculty and staff. Access to private/costly institutions. Seniority pool varies each year.
Pros vs Cons, continued Cons Seniority very high at UF, average years Budget cuts limited amount of import slots Tuition increases limit slots for imports, especially for out-of-state. Administrative time to manage program averages.30 FTE of staff and admin/year. Out-of-state tuition for imports $20,400/year for
Institutional Management of the Program Tuition goes up Out-of-State tuition cost Fees 2 Semesters; no Summer except Innovation Academy Export Institution can charge employee’s for participation in the program Number of credits students (Imports) can take per semester Whether to allow graduate courses Program lengths (greater # of credits needed or Dual Degree programs). Late fees for Employees/Exports
Break for Lunch
Group Discussion Paula Varnes Fussell Vice President Human Resource Services
Group Discussion Health and Wellness Activities Affordable Care Act Minimum Wage Increases Allocation Funds vs Enrollment Dual Career Programs VEVRAA and Section 503
Break Out Sessions CUHRE, APAC, Attorneys Rooms A and Ballroom
Wireless Internet Connection To connect to the wireless internet connection: 1.Choose the “ufvistor” from the list of available WI-FI Networks on your device 2.Open a new Internet browser window and follow the prompts If you have any problems, please let us know.
APAC/CUHRE 2014 Spring Event March 4, 2014
Agenda 8:00 – 8:30amBreakfast 8:30 – 10:30amCollective Bargaining and Status Updates 10:30 – 10:45amBreak 10:45 – 11:15amTrends in Current CBAs 11:15am – NoonLegislative Update Noon – 1:00pmLunch 1:00 – 200pmOnboarding 2:00pmWrap Up and Closing Discussions
OUTLINE OF TOPICS Collective Bargaining Updates Trends at the Negotiating Table Legislative Updates
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES Waiving the Special Magistrate Refusal to Ratify/Self-Help Surveying Employees for Evaluations Financial Urgency Collective Bargaining Tips
Waiving the Special Magistrate COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
IMPASSE PROCESS The Special Magistrate To Use or Not to Use? Parties may agree to waive the Special Magistrate Hearing Proceed directly to a hearing before the legislative body Both parties must agree Must be in writing
IMPASSE PROCESS The Special Magistrate To Use or Not to Use? Reasons to bypass Special Magistrate Cost Time Number of Issues Involved Political Reasons Employer’s best interest is to bypass Special Magistrate in most cases Difficult to get union to agree
IMPASSE PROCESS The Special Magistrate To Use or Not to Use? Reasons not to bypass Special Magistrate Special Magistrate’s Recommendation may be helpful: Neutral perspective Public perception Bargaining unit employees Legislative body May narrow issues
Changing Proposals at Impasse
CHANGING PROPOSALS AT IMPASSE Issue: Can you change or introduce new proposals at impasse? Port Orange I – Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118 v. City of Port Orange, 37 FPER 99 (2011), aff’d per curiam, 86 So.3d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
PORT ORANGE I Facts Parties were negotiating a successor agreement, and the City was seeking to reduce its pension costs Reached an agreement, but it was not ratified by the Union Parties resumed negotiations – the City realized it could not impose pension increases without employee agreement, so it proposed a 6% wage reduction instead City declared impasse over several articles including Wages and Pensions At the Special Magistrate hearing, the City proposed, for the first time, to reduce starting and top out pay by 6%
PORT ORANGE I Facts Parties filed several ULPs against each other, including several issues In part, the Union alleged that (1) the City unlawfully substituted a 6% wage reduction in lieu of pension contribution increases and (2) unlawfully proposed a 6% decrease in starting pay and top out pay for the first time at the special magistrate hearing Hearing Officer concluded that it was not unlawful to propose a 6% wage reduction in lieu of the pension reform, but the City committed a ULP by proposing the 6% decrease in starting and top out pay for the first time at the hearing
PORT ORANGE I Outcome PERC ruled that the 6% reduction in starting and top out pay was not a ULP because the parties are allowed to change their positions at any point during impasse provided that the amended proposals do not touch on a topic that was not previously negotiated at the bargaining table PERC affirmed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that proposing a 6% wage reduction in lieu of a pension contribution increase was not unlawful The First DCA affirmed per curiam
Refuse to Ratify / Self-Help
REFUSE TO RATIFY / SELF-HELP Issue: Union refuses to ratify Port Orange II – City of Port Orange v. Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118, 38 FPER 244 (2011) Daytona Beach Fire Rescue Local 1162, IAFF v. City of Daytona Beach, 39 FPER 28 (2012), aff’d per curiam, 121 So.3d 1058 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2013)
PORT ORANGE II Facts After PERC issued its order in Port Orange I, the City revised its proposed impasse agreement to the Union for ratification The Union refused to sign and submit for ratification, claiming confusing over the effective date of the 6% wage reduction
PORT ORANGE II The Unfair Labor Practice Charge The City filed a ULP alleging that it was unlawful for the Union to refuse to sign and submit the agreement for ratification The Hearing Officer found that the Union’s refusal was unlawful PERC affirmed, citing to City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Municipal Employees, Local 2432, AFSCME, 468 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1985) that the purpose of Section (4)(e), Florida Statutes, is to bring collective bargaining to an end at a point certain
DAYTONA BEACH Facts Negotiation for a successor agreement were unsuccessful for three years in a row, the parties maintained status quo The City declared impasse and the parties went to a Special Magistrate hearing Union accepted recommendations on all issues, and the City rejected the recommendations on 4 issues City Council unanimously accepted the City’s position on all remaining disputed issues
DAYTONA BEACH Facts City sent the agreement to the Union, including the agreed upon issues and legislatively resolved issues The letter said that the Union’s failure to sign and return would be considered a refusal to send the agreement to ratification Union did not sign or return City implemented the agreement without a ratification vote
DAYTONA BEACH The Unfair Labor Practice The Union filed a ULP alleging that the City bargained in bad faith by imposing the legislatively resolved impasse issues without a ratification vote Hearing Officer held that the City’s sole remedy was to file an unfair labor practice and the City could not engage in self-help or establish a time limit for the Union’s ratification
DAYTONA BEACH Final Order Reversed the Hearing Officer and held that a local government is “authorized to implement those legislatively resolved wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment for its employees represented by a union after a special magistrate proceeding when the union refuses to submit to the employees for ratification a signed copy of a complete agreement containing the resolved articles and the tentative agreements.” PERC receded from its “overly broad” comments in Communications Workers of America, Local 3170 v. City of Gainesville, 20 FPER (1994) that “a ratification vote is a condition precedent to implementation of legislatively resolved impasse issues.”
DAYTONA BEACH Outcome This achieved legislative intent that “lack of final resolution of a bargaining impasse… creates potential turmoil” and that the impasse procedure was designed by the Legislature “to provide an end to a potentially endless bargaining process.” City of Hollywood Limitation – Self-Help when the Union refuses to ratify Affirmed per curiam by the Fifth DCA
THE RUSE Issue: Union agrees to adverse proposals to remove them from the impasse process Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1593 v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, 39 FPER 175 (2012), on appeal docketed at 2D (Fla. 2 nd DCA) Naples I - Professional Firefighters of Naples, I.A.F.F. v. City of Naples, 39 FPER 329 (2013), aff’d per curiam, unpublished at 2013 WL (Fla. 2 nd DCA 2013) Communications Workers of America v. School District of Indian River County, 40 FPER 32 (2013)
ATU v. HART FACTS The parties began negotiating a successor agreement in June 2010 for a contract that expired in September 2010 After 8 months of negotiations, HART declared impasse on six articles The parties went to a Special Magistrate hearing – recommendations were mostly favorable to the Union The Union accepted all six recommendations, HART accepted three and rejected three others
ATU v. HART FACTS Scheduled a Legislative Body hearing Immediately prior to hearing, the Union’s attorney told HART it would agree to its proposals on the remaining issues, did not sign any TA but told the legislative body that they had reached a tentative agreement Union conducted ratification vote – contract not ratified HART re-scheduled the legislative body hearing, Union claimed they had to return to bargaining accoding to Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1701 v. Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36 FPER 453 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) HART conducted legislative body hearing, Union did not attend and HART imposed all 6 issues, Union refused to send to ratification
ATU v. HART The Unfair Labor Practice Charges Union filed ULP alleging that HART bargained in bad faith by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed ratification vote, by conducting a legislative body hearing instead, and by implementing the articles resolved at the hearing HART filed ULP alleging that the Union committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to conduct a ratification vote
ATU v. HART Hearing Officer’s Order HART committed unfair labor practice because it bargained in bad faith by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed ratification vote, by conducting a legislative body hearing instead, and by implementing the articles resolved at the hearing Hearing Officer relied on Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1701 v. Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36 FPER 453 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) – when the agreement was not ratified, the parties were required to resume bargaining Union did not commit an unfair labor practice by refusing to conduct a ratification vote
ATU v. HART PERC Final Order Sarasota was not applicable – in Sarasota, parties were ordered back to bargaining because of confusion over what issues were at impasse, no confusion in this case – here there was no confusion, so there was no need to resume bargaining Relied on City of Hollywood – The purpose of the impasse resolution process is to bring collective bargaining to a conclusion Requiring the parties to return to bargaining would lead to a never ending cycle of negotiations Because the Union refused to submit the agreement to ratification, HART could engage in self-help and implement the agreement
ATU v. HART PERC Final Order HART did not commit an unfair labor practice The Union did not commit an unfair labor practice – no allegation of improper motive Pending on appeal in the Second DCA
NAPLES I FACTS In IAFF v. Naples, the parties began negotiating a successor agreement in June 2011 for a contract expiring in September 2011 After 13 bargaining sessions, the parties reached impasse on two issues: pension reform & safety/health article Union refused to agree to pension reform, City would not agree to proposed changes to safety/health article During negotiations, City offered wage increase and holiday pay to entice Union to agree
NAPLES I FACTS City’s position at impasse was more drastic cuts than proposed during negotiations and did not include a wage increase or holiday pay Union refused all the way up to the Special Magistrate Hearing After City’s presentation at the Special Magistrate Hearing, the Union suddenly agreed to City’s pension proposal – did not condition its acceptance on wages or holiday pay The City refused to accept the Union’s purported “Agreement”
NAPLES I The Unfair Labor Practice Charges Union filed ULP alleging that City bargained in bad faith by rejecting its own proposal City filed ULP alleging that the Union bargained in bad faith because its intent in agreeing to the City’s proposal was not to reach an agreement, but instead to derail the impasse resolution process, avoid imposition of pension reform, and perpetuate the status quo
NAPLES I The Outcome Union bargained in bad faith “In sum, Local 2174’s motivation in accepting the City’s pension proposal was to remove the City’s proposed pension plan from the impasse resolution process. Local 2174’s motivation was not to reach an accord with the City. Rather, Local 2174’s purpose in agreeing with the pension plan was to derail the impasse resolution process and perpetuate the status quo.” Union “knew or should have known that the employees will not ratify the contract based on their self-interest.” “This one instance of bad faith so permeated the entire process that it rendered the impasse resolution process meaningless.”
NAPLES I The Outcome City did not bargain in bad faith Because the Union acted in bad faith by purportedly accepting the City’s proposal, the parties remained at impasse and the City did not act unlawfully by continuing the impasse resolution process. “The City assumed the risk that it was acting lawfully when it rejected Local 2174’s acceptance of the pension proposal.” Second DCA affirmed per curiam
INDIAN RIVER Facts Parties reached impasse over health insurance - two days before the hearing, the Union agreed to the District’s proposal The Special Magistrate hearing was cancelled, but the ratification vote failed by a vote of 226 to 3 The District resumed the impasse process via ATU v. HART and returned to the Special Magistrate hearing, but the Union refused to participate
INDIAN RIVER The Unfair Labor Practice The parties filed several unfair labor practices against each other The District alleged that the Union unlawfully agreed to the District’s insurance proposal as a ruse to thwart the collective bargaining process and intentionally avoid finality in negotiations Union alleged that District was required to resume bargaining, not return to point of impasse after the failed ratification vote (Sarasota)
INDIAN RIVER Outcome The Hearing Officer concluded that the Union unlawfully agreed to the District’s insurance proposal to thwart the bargaining process “The CWA agreed to the District’s health insurance proposal knowing with virtual certainty that the unit employees would not ratify the proposal and with the intent of avoiding finality in the bargaining process and extending the status quo indefinitely. This conduct constitutes a failure to bargain in good faith because it makes a mockery of the impasse resolution process and renders it meaningless.” Also reiterated that Parties may return to point of impasse after failed ratification (ATU v. HART) PERC affirmed
OTHER CASES City of Hialeah v. International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1102, 38 FPER 111 (2011) After over two years of negotiations and impasse proceedings, a Special Magistrate sided with the City on every issue at impasse, but the Union did not file any rejections. Ratification failed by a vote of 177 to 1 and after ULP proceedings concluding the Union had not bargained in bad faith, the parties were forced to go back to negotiations.
OTHER CASES International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 2622 v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 39 FPER 283 (2013) Over the course of negotiations, the City declared impasse three times, and each of the first two times, the Union “accepted” the City’s proposal before the special magistrate, and the agreement was overwhelmingly rejected by the bargaining unit. After the third time, both parties filed ULPs. PERC held that the Union did not bargain in bad faith, but took note of its recent statement in ATU v. HART and cautioned that its dismissal of this case should not be read “to countenance a never-ending cycle of negotiations.” It’s decision was based on a lack of evidence showing bad faith.
OTHER CASES Naples II – Professional Fire Fighters of Naples, IAFF, Local 2174 v. City of Naples, CA (January 13, 2014) (not final) After first ULP hearing, the Special Magistrate issued an order recommending the City’s position on the pension issue because the Union had not made a presentation. Anticipating that the Union would not reject the Special Magistrate’s recommendation, and because the Union’s position remained unclear after additional negotiations, the City rejected the recommendation of its own position to give the Union an opportunity to present its position to the legislative body. The Hearing Officer found that the City’s rejection demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds and was not unlawful.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES Employee Communication The Fine Line of Direct Dealing
SURVEYING EMPLOYEES A public employer commits an unfair labor practice if it negotiates directly with the bargaining unit employees. “Direct dealing” is prohibited because it can undermine the exclusive status of the employee organization. What about seeking faculty input on the criteria for the award of continuing contracts?
SURVEYING EMPLOYEES PERC does allow employers to communicate with employees so long as such expression contains no promise of benefit or threat of reprisal or force. See (3), F.S. The communication with employees must be informational only. Ask whether the communication has the effect of enlisting employees to withdraw or abandon their support of the certified bargaining agent.
SURVEYING EMPLOYEES You decide – Ok to seek faculty input? Compare Duval Teachers United v. School District of Duval County, 36 FPER 62 (2010) – Superintendent ed a survey to all District employees, including unit members, asking their opinion on how District should prioritize potential budget cuts. – PERC ruled that communication was lawful. – Requested information. Did not request union members to bargain with Superintendent instead of Union.
FINANCIAL URGENCY First DCA and Fourth DCA Clash over Standard Applied to Establish Financial Urgency City of Miami,118 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) City of Hollywood, -- So. 3d – (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 8, 2014)
FINANCIAL URGENCY Debate Over the Second Prong of the Chiles Test Authority of gov’t to modify a contract and violate the union’s right to collectively bargain First DCA – Local gov’t not required to demonstrate that funds are not available from any other possible source Fourth DCA – Claimed First DCA modified Chiles test. District court cannot modify Fla. Supreme Court holding.
Bargaining Tips COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
BARGAINING TIPS Package Proposals During Negotiations Throughout Impasse Process Ratification Letter (Daytona Beach) Require response Set deadline Self-help if Union refuses to conduct ratification Return to point of impasse after failed ratification (Port Orange, HART)
BARGAINING TIPS Do not accept a bad faith acceptance (Naples, Indian River) Rejecting your own proposal (Naples 2) If Union will not reject an adverse recommendation Very limited circumstances – works better with a package proposal Change position at impasse (Port Orange, Naples) Rescind concessions One year contract
Trends at the Table CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Bonus Payments After the Revision to Section , F.S. Retirement and Pension Cost of Health Insurance Evaluation Programs
Trends at the Table CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Limits on the Ability to Grieve Release Time for Union Activity Overtime and Additional Pay Promotion for the At-Will
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES “Student Success Act” – SB 736 Proposed Legislative Budget Request DOMA and Windsor v. US
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES “Student Success Act” Senate Bill 736 Comprehensive overhaul of K-12 education Applicable to DRS Schools
STUDENT SUCCESS ACT Sweeping reforms – Teachers evaluated on a scale of four performance levels (highly effective, effective, needs improvement, unsatisfactory) – At least half of evaluation based on student learning growth – Eliminated tenure, annual contracts only
Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526 (Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D (Fla. 1 st DCA 2013) Six individuals filed a constitutional challenge to the law Arguments (1) Facially unconstitutional infringement on collective bargaining rights (2) Unlawfully delegates legislative authority to the State Board of Education to define the numerical scores representing the four performance levels
Result? – Leon County Circuit Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments and upheld law as constitutional Plaintiffs’ appealed – Appeal limited to unlawful delegation argument Oral argument is scheduled for March 25, 2014 Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526 (Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D (Fla. 1 st DCA 2013)
Pay Increases for Faculty & Staff LEGISLATIVE UPDATES Legislative Appropriation 1950A Base Salary lesser than $40,000 $1,400 Raise Base Salary greater than $40,000 $1,000 Raise
PAY INCREASES Additionally, in June of 2014, $600 bonus available to employees from special Legislative appropriation Top 35% of eligible permanent employees Baseline requirements – Section (2) Florida Statutes Employed prior to July 1 of that year Employed for 6 consecutives months No sustained disciplinary actions in past year
DOMA LEGISLATIVE UPDATES United States v. Windsor (June 26, 3013) Issue: Constitutionality of DOMA’s provision denying federal benefits to same-sex partners. State Law Determines Benefits
DOMA & DOMESTIC PARTNERS Origin of Domestic Partner Benefit Plans Windsor’s Impact Wal-Mart Will Offer Domestic Partner Benefits Future Still Unclear
Michael Mattimore, Esq. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL (850) Thank You!!!
Break for Lunch
What's in it for YOU! - Electronic Onboarding Melissa Curry Director Recruitment & Staffing
Agenda Impact of Electronic Onboarding Avoiding Risk Gaining Efficiencies Improving Brand Image University of Florida – GatorStart Key Drivers Value Gained A Look at the Electronic Process Support of Legislative Updates Challenges with Remote Employees Support of Foreign Nationals Impact on the University
Inefficiencies- Manual Onboarding Applicant accepts job offer Information is manually entered New hire completes paperwork onsite or mails back Location collects the completed forms Manually enter data into payroll and other HR system Hard copy is saved and appropriate copies given to new hire Corporate HR is hopeful that compliance is not an issue… Manager reviews all documentation New hire packet is assembled Packet is mailed or delivered on first day If error Manual Onboarding
Improved Efficiencies- Electronic Onboarding A new hire packet is electronically created pre-populated with new hire data. New hire completes documentation quickly on-line and can print “smart forms” Data is automatically checked for completeness and accuracy. Electronically stored and data exported into appropriate HR systems. Applicant accepts job offer. Data is sent to Onboarding Solution.
Improved Brand Image Reduction in time spent on manual processes allows for more focused attention on employee socialization, which may increase retention. 90% of organizations believe employees make decision to stay based on impression of the company in the first year. Aberdeen Research Aberdeen Group
University of Florida – GatorStart CUPA-HR 2012HR Innovation Award Awarded to innovations that advance and contribute to the overall excellence of the HR Profession Davis Productivity Award Awarded to state employees and work units for innovation, creativity, and work product that significantly increases productivity in the delivery of state services and products
About the University of Florida: Major research university enrolling 50,000 students 26,000 employees 10,000 new hires annually Employees located in every state, however, 95% of employees are located in Gainesville, FL Central HR staff of 85 Decentralized with approval workflows PeopleSoft 9.1
Key Drivers Leading to an Electronic Process Introduction of the electronic I-9 segmented the hiring process so UF continued completing the paper form. Implementation of E-Verify forced reconsideration but still looking for a comprehensive onboarding process. Then we were introduced to Equifax Workforce Solutions electronic onboarding.
Let’s walk through the process… New Screen Shots
New Screen Shots
New Screen Shots
Our vision continues to evolve…..
New Legislation Quickly Supported in an Electronic Process ACA Notifications All New Hires within 14 Days of Start Unique Delivery Requirements 503 Self-Identification Government Contractors Pre-Hire & New Hire after March 2014 All employees by March 2015 Every 5 Years
Challenges with Remote Employees Growing number of remote employees Growing enrollment through online courses More telecommuters Access to computers Addition of Extension Campuses
Support of Foreign Nationals Foreign Nationals “SSN Applied for State” Breaks Automated Processes Electronic Process Manages the Exceptions
Positive Impact on the Organization New hires love it! Ease of use and online paperwork completed in 10 to 15 minutes on average. “Smart” Forms eliminate paperwork errors. Workload reduction for hiring managers and HR. Improved I-9 and E-Verify compliance--slowly. Ability to engage employee in our culture and community from the start. Average time saved per hire is 1.5 hours with an estimated salary savings of $360,000 annually. *1.5 hours per $24 per hour, 10,000 hires annually