United Academics, AAUP/AFT v. University of Vermont
Annotate this Case
United Academics v. University of Vermont (2004-177); 179 Vt. 60; 889 A.2d 722
2005 VT 96
[Filed 19-Aug-2005]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 22-Sep-2005]
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
to press.
2005 VT 96
No. 2004-177
United Academics, AAUP/AFT and Supreme Court
Dawn Saunders
On Appeal from
v. Labor Relations Board
University of Vermont and March Term, 2005
State Agricultural College
Edward R. Zuccaro, Acting Chair
Richard T. Cassidy and Jennifer E. Nelson of Hoff Curtis, Burlington, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Joseph P. McConnell of Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for
Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and
Cook, D.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
¶ 1. JOHNSON, J. Dawn Saunders and United Academics appeal from
a Vermont Labor Relations Board order dismissing their grievance against
the University of Vermont. Appellants contend that the Board erred: (1) by
finding that the University appointed Dr. Saunders to a one-semester
position as Lecturer in economics prior to the ratification of a new
collective bargaining agreement; and (2) by failing to conclude that the
terms and conditions of the new agreement superseded Dr. Saunders's
individual employment contract. We affirm.
¶ 2. The University first appointed Dr. Saunders to a part-time
position as a Visiting Assistant Professor in the fall of 1995. Although
she was not actually visiting from another institution, Dr. Saunders
preferred this title and rank to that of Lecturer. The following year the
University offered her a full-time contract, and she taught various
economics courses as a Visiting Assistant Professor through the spring of
2003. During the 2000-01 school year, Dr. Saunders had discussions with
the acting chair of the economics department about the possibility of
taking a one-year research sabbatical. With the chair's encouragement, she
submitted an application for sabbatical the following fall.
¶ 3. Upon review, the University administration determined that, as
a Visiting Assistant Professor, Dr. Saunders was not eligible for a paid
research sabbatical. She then filed a grievance with the University
Grievance Committee. The Committee determined that the Officer's
Handbook-which governed faculty appointments at the time-did not permit
visiting professors to take sabbatical, but ultimately sustained Dr.
Saunders's grievance because she relied on the department chair's advice to
her detriment. The Committee recommended that the University grant Dr.
Saunders paid leave for the spring 2003 semester, and Interim University
President Edwin Colodny subsequently agreed with that recommendation.
¶ 4. In August 2002, the University sent Dr. Saunders a letter
confirming her appointment for the upcoming school year. The letter
advised Dr. Saunders that the Officer's Handbook limited visiting
professorships to six years, informed her that this was her final year in
the rank, and noted that her current appointment carried no expectation of
reappointment the following year. The letter further acknowledged that the
terms of the appointment might change as a result of ongoing collective
bargaining negotiations between the school and United Academics. Dr.
Saunders signed the letter and returned it with commentary suggesting that
the six-year limit and her reappointment status might also change under a
new collective bargaining agreement.
¶ 5. In early September 2002, Dr. Saunders completed an application
for professional development leave in accordance with the Grievance
Committee's recommendations. She asked to defer her leave to the following
fall, however, as that time better served her research goals. Dr.
Saunders's request dovetailed with the economics department's needs, and
the new department chair tentatively approved the proposal. Final
authority to approve the deferral rested with the University Provost,
however, and he denied Dr. Saunders's application because she had no
underlying employment contract for the fall of 2003. The Provost
instructed her to promptly advise the University whether she still planned
to take leave during the spring 2003 semester. United Academics
immediately objected to the Provost's decision.
¶ 6. Shortly thereafter, the Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences sent a memorandum to the Provost proposing a solution to the
problem. The Dean suggested that:
Dr. Saunders be offered a contract for full-time employment during
Fall 2003. This contract will specify that she will be
immediately released from any teaching obligation during the Fall
2003 semester and instead be placed on a one-semester research
leave. As is our custom, it will also specify that the contract
implies no guarantee of future employment.
The Provost approved this proposal in a letter sent to both Dr. Saunders
and the Dean on January 13, 2003. Although Dr. Saunders did not receive a
formal letter of appointment for the fall 2003 semester, she acknowledged
the approval of her appointment in a response letter sent to the Provost in
March.
¶ 7. In the interim, the University and United Academics settled
on a new collective bargaining agreement, which became effective on
February 6, 2003. Article 14 of the agreement contains the following
language regarding faculty appointments:
At the conclusion of two years of consecutive service at the
University as a bargaining unit lecturer, or as a visiting faculty
member, or a combination of years thereof in such ranks, if the
University in its discretion decides to reappoint the lecturer,
the University will appoint the lecturer to a term contract of two
years. Any further lecturer appointments shall also be for two
years.
In the letter acknowledging her fall 2003 appointment, Dr. Saunders
referred the Provost to Article 14, and advised him that she "expect[ed] to
return to teaching in the Spring of 2004 as a continuing lecturer under the
[collective bargaining agreement]." In response, the Provost informed Dr.
Saunders that her appointment was for one semester only, and that any
future employment was at the discretion of the economics department chair.
The chair subsequently notified Dr. Saunders that she would not be offered
reappointment after the fall semester.
¶ 8. United Academics filed a grievance with the department chair on
Dr. Saunders's behalf alleging that: (1) the one-semester appointment
violated Article 14 of the collective bargaining agreement; and (2) Dr.
Saunders's deep involvement in the organization and administration of the
faculty union influenced the chair's decision to terminate her employment.
The University denied the grievance, and appellants brought the matter
before the Vermont Labor Relations Board. The Board concluded that: (1)
Article 14 did not apply because the University extended Dr. Saunders her
one-semester appointment before the collective bargaining agreement became
effective; and (2) the department chair's decision not to reappoint her
was not the result of anti-union animus. This appeal followed.
¶ 9. Appellants contend that the Board erred: (1) by finding that
Dr. Saunders's one-semester appointment preceded the ratification of the
collective bargaining agreement; and (2) by failing to conclude that the
terms of the agreement superseded Dr. Saunders's individual employment
contract. We give the Board's decision substantial deference on appeal.
Milton Educ. & Support Ass'n v. Milton Bd. of Sch. Trs., 171 Vt. 64, 69,
759 A.2d 479, 483 (2000). Our review is limited to evaluating whether the
evidence supports the Board's factual findings, and whether those findings,
taken as a whole, justify the conclusions of law. Id.
¶ 10. Appellants first contend that the Board erred in finding that
Dr. Saunders received her one-semester appointment before the effective
date of the new collective bargaining agreement. As the Board noted, the
agreement expressly states that it "shall be effective from the date of
ratification, February 6, 2003 and shall continue in full force and effect
until midnight June 30, 2005." The Board concluded that Dr. Saunders's
one-semester appointment occurred on January 13, 2003, when the Provost
approved the Dean's proposal to defer Dr. Saunders's paid leave until the
following fall. While appellants argued that the Provost's approval
letter-sent to both the Dean and Dr. Saunders-was unlike the formal
appointment letters the University typically sends out, the Board found
that the letter "represented a creative solution to an unique situation,"
and concluded that "[t]he unique nature of the appointment explains why
Professor Saunders did not receive the traditional letter of appointment."
We discern no reversible error in the Board's findings on this issue.
¶ 11. Appellants alternatively contend that, upon ratification, the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement superseded those of Dr.
Saunders's individual employment contract. (FN1) Appellants rely primarily
on the United States Supreme Court's decision in J.I. Case Co. v. NLRB for
the proposition that the terms of a pre-existing individual employment
contract must yield in the face of more favorable terms negotiated in a
collective bargaining agreement. 321 U.S. 332, 338 (1944). The University
challenges appellants' characterization of J.I. Case Co., but we need not
resolve that dispute to decide this case. While we have recognized that
"[t]he very purpose of a collective bargaining agreement is to supersede
individual contracts with terms which reflect the strength and bargaining
power and serve the welfare of the group," Morton v. Essex Town School
Dist., 140 Vt. 345, 350, 443 A.2d 447, 449 (1982) (per curiam) (mot. for
reargument), we have not yet precluded an individual employee from
negotiating an individual contract that provides benefits above and beyond
the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Indeed, there is no
dispute that J.I. Case Co. addressed only individual contracts that
"subtract from collective ones." J.I. Case Co., 321 U.S. at 339. Thus, if
Dr. Saunders's one-semester appointment conferred upon her a special
benefit, then the collective bargaining agreement did not affect the terms
of her individual contract.
¶ 12. The one-semester appointment at issue here came about as a
result of Dr. Saunders's unusual request for sabbatical leave and the
University's creative response to the issues that ensued. Although
visiting professors are not typically eligible for sabbatical, the
University granted Dr. Saunders one semester of paid leave after the
Grievance Committee concluded that the former economics chair mistakenly
encouraged her application. Dr. Saunders then asked to defer the leave
until the following fall, when she had no underlying employment contract.
To accommodate her request, the University crafted a special arrangement
whereby she received a one-semester appointment with the understanding that
she would immediately take the paid leave. Had the University not offered
Dr. Saunders the special appointment, she would not have been eligible to
continue as a visiting professor, and she would have enjoyed no expectation
of reappointment in any rank for the fall of 2003. Further, the collective
bargaining agreement treats even an ordinary sabbatical "as a privilege and
. . . not an automatic benefit, " and here the University went out of its
way to ensure that Dr. Saunders received paid leave to which she was not
technically entitled. Under these circumstances, the special arrangement
the University offered Dr. Saunders certainly qualifies as a benefit that
would not extend to typical employees under the agreement. As such, the
ratification of the collective bargaining agreement did not affect Dr.
Saunders's one-semester appointment.
¶ 13. Contrary to appellants' contentions, the Board did not err in
finding that Dr. Saunders's one-semester appointment occurred before the
effective date of the new collective bargaining agreement; and, because the
appointment provided a special benefit, the agreement did not affect the
terms of Dr. Saunders's individual contract. Accordingly, we affirm the
Board's order dismissing appellants' grievance.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
_______________________________________
Associate Justice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
FN1. Appellants initially contend that the Board failed to reach this
question, and urge us to remand the case for a determination of the issue.
Because we conclude, as a matter of law, that a subsequent collective
bargaining agreement has no effect on an individual contract-such as Dr.
Saunders's-that confers a special benefit, a remand would serve no purpose
here. That is, even if the Board were to apply J.I. Case Co.v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332 (1944) in the manner appellants suggest, the agreement would not
affect Dr. Saunders's appointment, which provides a benefit above and
beyond the collective contract.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
