Originally Posted by
Viper25
Didnt realize you were a
legal scholar. Some “simple words” have a ton of nuance in legal circles. Another example is “implement” which our company takes liberties with. That said, no, your “not rocket science” take has a lot of nuance. In fact, all these “simple words” are in fact simple in their colloquial use, but anything but in their legal use. Here’s an explanation that barely only scratches the surface.
A past practice is not just something that has been done before; “past practice” has a specific legal definition. From a legal perspective, a past practice is related to collective bargaining matters and must be (1) long-standing, (2) uniformly applied, (3) uniformly understood by both faculty and their manager, and (4) consistent with the Agreement and state and federal laws. “Long-standing” is understood to be several years, not weeks, or months, or even one year. About three years is the generally accepted length of time for an otherwise qualified procedure to be considered a past practice. The more years a past practice is in place, the more established it becomes. Just as the Agreement is not a perfect document covering all considerations, the same is true of past practices. Thus, “uniformly applied” means the practice is used predominately within the scope of its application and there may be necessary exceptions. For example,faculty expertise or legitimate faculty or department needs might lead to variation in application of a scheduling practice.Such departures from “uniformly applied” would not disqualify the practice from being a past practice. “Uniformly understood” means both faculty and management recognize and acknowledge the practice. New faculty and new deans coming into a division and department can mean that a past practice is not known by all, so “uniformly understood”requires substantial, not absolute consensus. “Consistent with the
Agreement and state and federal laws” means past practices cannot conflict with the contract language or any state or federal laws that may apply. For example, a department cannot establish a past practice of having full-time faculty teach part of their load on the weekends because the Agreement states that the normal academic workweek is between Monday and Friday.
But how is maple syrup made? Inquiring minds...
There's little to no chance we get anything. The best we can hope for is a "split the baby" decision. The latitude given to arbitrators is criminal IMHO.