The union is alleging that MSU violated the “status quo," or the existing terms and conditions of employment at the time a union is officially recognized, when the university made changes to the faculty grievance procedure and process for salary increases, citing legal advice from the general counsel. Under Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act for public universities, MSU is prohibited from making unilateral changes to policies and procedures about subjects of bargaining during the period of negotiations for an initial contract.

“It's to protect the union and protect the employees,” UTSF President NiCole Buchanan said. “To make sure that the employer is not creating a series of changes in that middle time frame that disadvantage employees.”

In the months following UTSF’s formal recognition by the university, Buchanan said she started hearing concerns regarding salary raises. 

Other concerns relayed by faculty included summer salaries and changes to how faculty submit grievances to the Faculty Grievance & Dispute Resolution Office (FGO), which prompted UTSF to hold a meeting with MSU administrators to discuss these alleged status quo violations. 

Shifted timelines

During the meeting last week, Buchanan said she was made aware that MSU had unilaterally decided to pause academic governance activities on salary recommendations, with the expectation that the university would negotiate salaries directly with the union. Buchanan was especially troubled with the timing of the decision: within two days of the UTSF’s recognition.

“They clearly had this ready to go, and they were already putting this into place at the point of our formal recognition,” she said. “Our argument is that this is absolutely a violation of status quo, because it should have continued in the manner that it was supposed to continue, and they should not have made any changes, and certainly should not have made any unilateral changes.”

This change to negotiate directly with the union over salary raises, rather than through the standard university channels, was not formally communicated to UTSF, Buchanan said. To her and her fellow faculty members, she said this could be perceived as an “act of bad faith” by the university given the union's previous challenges in getting recognized. 

“It feels particularly problematic as we're starting this new phase of contract negotiations, a phase that we would hope we can be collaborative and really work to the best interest of all members,” she said.

Buchanan also expressed concern that stopping academic governance from making salary recommendations creates the perception that the provost is the only party providing input for faculty salary raises.

And due to being too late in the timeline for salary raises, MSU is unable to revert those responsibilities back to academic governance, she added. As a result, UTSF now has the obligation to negotiate this sole issue of salary raises rather than a full contract.

In the best interest of the faculty that UTSF represents, Buchanan said the union will work with MSU to negotiate on this singular issue even though it should have been negotiated as part of the full contract.

“We're having to push the timeline on this single issue,” she said.

If UTSF chose not to negotiate solely on this issue and instead for the full contract, Buchanan said the outcome would be the university moving forward with raises without any input from faculty or academic governance.

“And that would be incredibly troubling,” she said.

UTSF now must work with MSU to create a meeting schedule and plan to enter this negotiation, something that may take weeks to start. Buchanan said the university isn’t available for weeks to discuss what this would look like.

“With us entering summer, that has the potential to put us into some disadvantages on the timeline,” she said.

University spokesperson Mark Bullion told The State News in an email, “The University has had several meetings with the UTSF and looks forward to continuing those conversations in good faith as we work toward a collective bargaining agreement."

Grievances in limbo

Another status quo violation UTSF is alleging against MSU pertains to faculty grievances. Buchanan said faculty who have submitted grievances through the proper channels have been left unaddressed and were told to take them to the union instead, as the previously established process is no longer in place due to the union being recognized.

Buchanan said UTSF takes issue with this since the union has yet to agree upon a process that has been negotiated with the university. As a result, those faculty grievances have been left in limbo and have not been addressed.

“In essence, they were taking out these cases without review,” she said.

UTSF, according to an update posted on their webpage, has come to an agreement with MSU that any grievance receiving a response from the FGO denying the right to grieve would be paused until the status quo issue is resolved.

Buchanan stressed that this is only the case with faculty who have made UTSF aware of grievances denied by MSU for this reason. She urged any faculty in this situation or considering filing a grievance to contact the union to ensure they are addressed and placed into a pause, rather than completely denied.

On concerns about potential violations of the summer salary status quo, Buchanan said MSU has been working with deans and department chairs to reinforce existing requirements. He added that units have been directed to maintain or revert to summer 2025 pay policies in cases where proposed changes would disadvantage faculty.