Dear Ms Johnston,
This letter is in response to your recent missives concerning your disagreement with the Union’s internal procedure for processing religious objections and the manner in which the Union has communicated with bargaining unit members regarding their obligations under Article 10 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Here are the facts:
Between March 24, 2024 and March 25, 2025 the parties held at least 27 bargaining sessions resulting in a CBA executed on April 11, 2025. At no time during these 27 sessions did the Employer propose that a specific form or questionnaire be used in the Union’s processing of religious objections pursuant to Article 10, Section D of the CBA. That section states in full:
If a Graduate Student Worker has a sincerely held religious belief, as defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), that prohibits them from joining and maintaining membership in a union, they may elect to pay the amount equivalent to initiation fees and monthly dues to charity in lieu of payments to the Union by advising the Union in writing of their religious objection and making monthly donations in an amount equivalent to union service fees to one or more of the following charities: American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, or the United Way. The Graduate Student Worker must show proof to the Union of having made the contributions to charity in the amount of membership dues on a monthly basis.
At the Labor Management Committee meeting on April 21, 2025 you asked if the Union planned to send instructions to unit members on how to become religious objectors. The Union responded that members are free to contact the Union if they have questions about the union security provisions in the CBA.
On April 28, 2025 you sent the Union a communication detailing your dissatisfaction with the standard form the Union uses in processing religious objections.
On May 6, 2025 the Union responded to your April 28 communication clarifying that the form is a standard form used by UE and that the Union would indeed honor requests for religious objections on the basis of the definition in the EEOC and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as agreed to by the parties during negotiations over Article 10.
On May 8, 2025 you proposed that the Union’s standard form used in the processing of religious objections be replaced with a form created by the Employer. A copy of the proposed form was attached to the email.
On May 14, 2025 you suggested that the parties meet to discuss your proposal to require the Union to use the Employer’s form to process religious objections.
On the same day the Union responded by reiterating its intent to follow the CBA in processing religious objections and pointing out that the CBA does not require the Union to use a form other than the standard form it typically uses to process religious objections.
On May 15, 2025 you sent the Union another proposal requiring the Union to use the Employer’s form to process religious objections, as well as a meeting to discuss the issue.
At the Labor Management Committee meeting on May 29, 2025 the Union informed management of its intent to submit signed union authorization cards to management the following day. After a thorough discussion about the processing of the cards, the Employer again raised concerns about the Union’s internal procedure for processing religious objections. In response, the Union informed you that the internal procedure regarding religious objections is not an item for discussion with the Employer, and that the Union intended to follow the CBA and the law with regard to the processing of religious objections.
On May 30, 2025 the Union submitted to the Employer approximately 1800 signed union dues authorization cards to be processed pursuant to Article 10.
At 2:46 PM on Monday, June 2, 2025 we received a communication from your office detailing your displeasure with the manner in which the Union has communicated with its members regarding the obligations of bargaining unit members under Article 10. You apparently felt that the Union should have detailed the procedure in Article 10, Section D which allows bargaining unit members to avoid paying union dues or agency fees by becoming religious objectors. You did not suggest that the Union detail any of the other rights afforded to bargaining unit members under the CBA. Your communication further stated that you would not comply with Article 10 due to your displeasure with the manner in which the Union has communicated with its members.
47 minutes later, the Employer emailed every member of the bargaining unit to inform them of the Employer’s refusal to implement Article 10 and that “...the university is unable to collect and remit membership dues and agency fees at this time.”
On June 10, 2025 you emailed a Union representative indicating your “shock” and “dismay” caused by the manner in which the Union has communicated with its members regarding the obligations of bargaining unit members under Article 10.
There is no statutory provision requiring the Union to use the Employer's form in processing religious objections. Nor does any statute exist requiring the union to affirmatively communicate to members of the bargaining unit that they may become religious objectors.
Furthermore, you had 27 bargaining sessions during which you could have attempted to secure contract language requiring the Union to use your form to process religious objections and to affirmatively communicate that a contractual provision exists allowing religious objectors to pay to charities in lieu of paying dues or fees to the Union. Not only did you fail to secure such an agreement, you did not even make any such proposals to the Union. As a result, no such contractual requirement exists.
Simply put, there is no statutory or contractual requirement that the Union use the Employer’s form to process religious objections or a requirement that the Union communicate to bargaining unit members the provisions of Article 10 in a manner satisfactory to the Employer.
Given these circumstances it now appears that the Employer - having failed to achieve its aims during bargaining - believes it can refuse to comply with its contractual obligation to collect and disburse union dues and fees until it gets what it was unable to secure during bargaining.
The Employer’s position is unlawful, irresponsible and undermines the entire basis for collective bargaining. Were it to be upheld, either party could simply refuse to abide by contract provisions it does not like. This would lead to an extremely unstable bargaining relationship (not least due to the frequent strikes that could ensue if the Union had the right to simply refuse to abide by the No Strike/No Lockout clause) that, in our view, would hurt all parties involved.
During negotiations the Union went to great lengths to accommodate the Employer’s position on this issue, as demonstrated by the text of Article 10, Section D itself. We are always willing to entertain proposals and discussion on any issue - including this one - at our regular labor Management Committee meetings. Lastly you are, of course, free to propose the contractual requirements you seek at the expiration of the current CBA.
But make no mistake: this Union will not allow you to use noncompliance with our contract as leverage to win concessions you couldn't win in negotiations, nor to interfere in our internal affairs, including the forms we use, the content of communications with our members, or anything else. Should you continue to fail to comply with Article 10 of the CBA, we will take all necessary action to force compliance.
Sincerely,
CGSU-UE Interim Grievance Committee