Mike Leitch is an attorney in the Office of General Counsel. He is paid $12,500.00 per month to act as the in-house bully for the University of Kansas. His specialty is saying legal-sounding things to intimidate workers.
Wed 7/15/2020 9:58 AM
From: Leitch, Michael <mleitch@ku.edu>
To: Rose Welch
Cc: Brian Wood <REDACTED>; Thornton, Julie A. <julie.thornton@ku.edu>
Rose Welch
AFT-Kansas/GTAC
————————————-
Dear Ms. Welch:
Mr. Leitch,
Please find our response to your hostile and harassing email.
“Your July 10 and 13 emails to [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] in the [REDACTED] have been referred to my office for response. “
By whom?
“Those emails once again seek to meet and confer with individual department chairs over routine employment matters.”
Yes, exactly as required by Article 15, Section 6c of our Memorandum of Agreement.
“I previously pointed out that such conduct was inappropriate in my email to you dated June 24, 2020. “
We previously pointed out that your personal discomfort with our agreed-upon grievance procedure is irrelevant. Our grievance procedure is based on best practices for conflict resolution and is designed to keep power in the hands of our department chairs, with higher level issues being reviewed and resolved by the actual stakeholders of our labor – faculty workers, undergraduate students, and Graduate Teaching Assistants – as chosen by democratically elected bodies. We understand that your authoritarian view of the academy is threatened by a transparent and democratic process but frankly, your feelings are not our problem.
More importantly, you do not have the power to make up new rules when you feel upset. If KU administrators seek to change our Memorandum of Agreement, you may attempt to do so during contract negotiations. If KU administrators have reason to believe we have violated the law, you are bound to file a complaint. Again, this is the fillable PDF form you will need to file a charge against us. We invite you to do so in the hopes that this process will help resolve your issues and allow us to begin to build a harmonious and cooperative relationship.
“Your newest emails seek to schedule a meeting to discuss what you describe as “work conditions” for GTAs in [REDACTED]. With all due respect, we already have agreement on such matters…”
Yes, and this agreement specifies that we should seek meetings with department chairs to resolve our concerns, per Article 15, Section 6c of our Memorandum of Agreement.
“…and you have no right under the Kansas Public Employer Employee Relations Act to circumvent the University’s designated representative…”
No part of this sentence is true as written. But in the interests of understanding one another, we will review all related issues.
1. Department chairs are the designated representatives of the University.
Per Article 15, Section 6c of our Memorandum of Agreement, GTAC is required to make a good faith attempt to meet-and-confer with department chairs for the purpose of resolving grievances. GTAC cannot “circumvent” the designated representatives by emailing the designated representatives. Rather, KU administrators are attempting to circumvent the plain language of our contract by attempting to obfuscate the steps of our simple and effective grievance procedure.
2. No references to a “designated representative” for KU exist within our Memorandum of Agreement.
Our Memorandum of Agreement refers to “representatives” of AFT-Kansas and/or GTAC, a “designated person” for Title IX violations, and there is a single reference to a “designated management representative” in relation to Article 13, Section 4. If you meant that Ms. Thornton is now your “designated person” for Title IX violations, please understand that we must still refer all complaints to IOA as described in our Memorandum of Agreement. If you meant that Ms. Thornton is now your “designated management representative”, we can assure you that we will appropriately direct to Ms. Thornton the written requests of any GTAC worker who wishes to review their own personnel file.
3. KU invalidated all provisions referencing the “Director of Human Resources Management.”
There are four provisions which specifically refer to the “Director for Human Resources Management”, which seems at least marginally related to a “designated representative”. The first three provisions pertain only to AFT-Kansas, and not to GTAC. The fourth provision allows a notification which may sometimes be from GTAC, but does not grant any rights or responsibilities. None of these provisions are related to your complaints. But we’ll review nonetheless.
When the last Director of Human Resources Management retired, Mr. Rounds decided to reorganize the department rather than to fill this position, as is his right. This caused a technical issue in our contract. Because GTAC sincerely desires to to maintain its responsibilities as outlined in our Memorandum of Agreement, we offered to interpret all references to the “Director of Human Resources Management” as references to a replacement person.
In a hostile, obstinate, and purposely insulting reply, the Vice Provost for Operations, Mr. Mike Rounds, chose to reject our generous offer. Instead, Mr. Rounds held that as no Director existed, no violation regarding the Director could exist.
Although we expressed concern that this violated the spirit of our agreement, we had to concede that Mr. Rounds was technically correct. We notified KU that we accepted Mr. Round’s interpretation of the matter and reminded KU that, in the absence of a Director or an agreement to interpret that phrase as a different job title, neither GTAC nor AFT-Kansas could comply with those four provisions.
If your claim regarding Ms. Thornton is in reference to any of those provisions, please note that GTAC remains open to resolving this technical issue and would be happy to restore these provisions in favor of Ms. Thornton. If you would like to discuss a side note on the matter, please contact us. As always, we remain ready and willing to build a cooperative and harmonious relationship with our University.
4. KU administrators have failed to certify Ms. Thornton as an agent of the University.
On March 6th, 2020, GTAC opened contract negotiations by sending a Letter of Intent to Mr. Mike Rounds, the Vice Provost of Operations. We received a reply from Ms. Julie Thornton. This was our first introduction to Ms. Thornton.
On March 10th, 2020, we asked Mr. Rounds to confirm Ms. Thornton as an agent of the University. Mr. Rounds did not respond to our request, nor did Ms. Thornton take steps to ensure that she became appropriately certified. On April 27th, 2020, we again requested certification for Ms. Thornton. This request was also ignored. Until your email on June 24th, 2020, we could not have been “fully aware” that Ms. Thornton was an agent of the University because you failed to certify her.
Because we had no reason to doubt that Ms. Thornton probably was the appropriate person to help coordinate negotiations meetings and such, we treated Ms. Thornton as though she had been certified while we awaited a reply from an existing agent of the University. Luckily, no matters absolutely requiring a certified agent occurred during this time. However, both good sense and our Memorandum of Agreement dictate that agents be certified for the protection of our respective organizations.
Moving forward, if you prefer that we conduct business with anyone who emails from a ku.edu address claiming to be an agent of the University, we will do so. Please register this preference in writing. However, if you prefer that we continue to do business with certified agents, please ensure that you certify them.
Finally, if Ms. Thornton is your preferred representative, then why do you keep emailing us?
“…or to interfere in non-disciplinary matters regarding the assignment of work.”
At no point has GTAC attempted to interfere in work assignments.
“You are knowingly and intentionally violating Kansas law. I have copied GTAC’s counsel on this email in case you choose to consult your counsel before engaging in further GTAC-related activities.”
Please take this opportunity to file a complaint, Mr. Leitch. This is the fillable PDF form you will need to file a charge against us. We invite you to do so in the hopes that this process will help resolve your issues and allow GTAC workers and KU administrators to begin to build a harmonious and cooperative relationship.
“As noted, GTAC has no statutory right to meet and confer regarding how KU will provide class instruction.”
In fact, public agencies are obligated to enter into discussions with affirmative willingness to resolve grievances and disputes relating to conditions of employment, per KSA 75-4321(5)(b).
“That is entirely a management right. Under PEERA, the public employer has the right to “(d)etermine the methods, means and personnel by which operations are to be carried on.” K.S.A. 75-43626(g).”
The balance between worker rights and management rights has been taken up time and again, with the precedent being set by Kansas Bd. of Regents v. Pittsburg State Univ. Chap. of KNEA, 233 K. 801, 814, 815, 826, 667 P.2d 306 (1983), wherein the Public Employee Relations Board ruled that:
“For this court to hold that any item even though remotely relevant to management policy is beyond the pale of negotiation defeats the purpose of the legislation. Many matters involved in a teacher’s work day bear somewhat on management policy and at the same time are inextricably linked to wages, hours and conditions of employment. What the legislature gave was not intended to immediately be taken away.“
“Consistent with management rights, GTAC agreed in the MOA that, “GTAs shall hold classes at the assigned times and places.” See MOA Article 5, Section 7.”
Consistent with the law, such assignments have always been subject to individual negotiation and the individual discretion of the instructor. More specifically, our right to negotiate these specific conditions of work as outlined in Kansas state law has been strengthened by a long-standing traditional work practice in which:
1. Department chairs consulted with GTAC workers regarding course assignments, modes of instruction, locations, duties, and other conditions of work;
2. GTAC workers could express dissatisfaction with assignments and negotiate course assignments, modes of instruction, locations, duties, and other conditions of work with their department chairs and/or faculty supervisors; and
3. GTAC workers could exercise their own discretion in scheduling meetings with supervisors; the maintenance of office hours, the use of texts and other instructional materials; adherence to department-provided syllabi; and the administration of tests or other graded activities, all of which are listed within the same provision you cite.
Both Kansas state law and the traditional work practices of GTAC workers at our University support our right to negotiate our conditions of work, including location of work, mode of instructions, and any health or safety risks for ourselves or our families.
“Thus, your statement that routine communications sent to individual GTAs will be “appropriately redirected” to you is neither lawful nor acceptable. Individual GTAs who refuse to respond to supervisor communications may be subject to appropriate disciplinary action – including termination – for job abandonment and/or insubordination.”
It is clear to us that you are threatening our workers with retaliatory discipline for exercising their rights as unionized workers. Your behavior is not only deeply unethical, but violates the laws of our state, and we will be filing a charge against you as an agent of our University.
“You also have no rights under the MOA or PEERA to be present for routine meetings with employees or students.”
GTAC workers absolutely have the right to representation at all meetings which relate to grievances, all meetings which are disciplinary save counseling, and all meetings which are investigatory in nature. Your denial of our right to representation is unlawful and we will be filing a charge against you as an agent of the University.
“The MOA limits the rights of you and other AFT-Kansas representatives to be on University premises solely “for the purposes of investigating and discussing grievances or alleged violations of this agreement with the appropriate AFT-Kansas officer, employer representative, and/or affected employee(s),…”
As no representative of AFT-Kansas has even entered University premises solely for the purpose of investigating or discussing grievances, this provision has never been invoked. However, were you to attempt to invoke this provision, we would invoke our Constitutional right to freedom of association, our legal right as workers to engage with one another for mutual aid and protection, and our right as members of the public to use public spaces. We would not advise an attempt to bring a grievance on the grounds of this clearly unenforceable provision.
“…only after first notifying the director of Human Resource Management or the director’s designee(s).” See MOA Article 4, Section 3. “
The Vice-Provost of Operations, Mr. Michael Rounds, invalidated all four provisions referencing the “Director of Human Resources Management” over a year ago. Specifically, Mr. Rounds held that as no Director existed, no violation regarding the Director could exist. Although we expressed concern that this violated the spirit of our agreement, we had to concede that Mr. Rounds was technically correct and accepted this as a resolution to the technical issue.
If your claim regarding Ms. Thornton is in reference to any of those provisions, please note that GTAC remains open to resolving this technical issue and would be happy to restore these provisions in favor of Ms. Thornton. If you would like to discuss a side note on the matter, please contact us. As always, we remain ready and willing to build a cooperative and harmonious relationship with our University.
“You’ve given no such notice, and you never have.”
So you’re saying that this clause has been invalidated by a traditional work practice?
“There is no grievance identified in your emails…”
Yes, there is.
“…and there is no violation of the contract except your own.”
Please take this opportunity to file a complaint, Mr. Leitch. Again, this is the fillable PDF form you will need to file a charge against us. We invite you to do so in the hopes that this process will help resolve your issues and allow us to begin to build a harmonious and cooperative relationship.
“Your continued avoidance of the University’s designated representative…”
Per Article 15, Section 6c of our Memorandum of Agreement, department chairs are the designated representative for Step 1 grievances.
“…for purposes of meeting and conferring needs to stop immediately.”
Your illegal attempts to bully and harass GTAC workers must stop immediately.
“Again, you had the opportunity to meet and confer with the University in April.”
GTAC and the University are currently engaged in negotiations. The temporary suspension of meetings is not only our standard practice, but is specifically written into our Memorandum of Agreement.
“Instead, GTAC refused to attend the meet and confer sessions…”
GTAC has not “declined” to meet any more than KU “declined” to meet. Further, Ms. Thornton has already agreed to resume negotiations in the Fall 2020 semester, per Article 17 of our Memorandum of Agreement.
“…- sessions we scheduled at GTAC’s request. “
GTAC has never requested that you schedule a meeting for us.
“Bypassing the University’s designated representative is a violation of PEERA.”
Per Article 15, Section 6c of our Memorandum of Agreement, department chairs are the designated representatives.
“See K.S.A. 74-4333(c)(2)”
Chapter 74 provides oversight for various state board, commissions, and authorities, none of which involve the University of Kansas, the Kansas Board of Regents, or higher education in general. Article 43 concerns the Motor Vehicle Reciprocity Commission. Chapter 74, Article 43 ends at 05. Mr. Leitch, you aren’t citing a real law.
“…(prohibited practice for public employee or labor organization to “interfere with, restrain or coerce a public employer with respect to management rights granted in K.S.A. 75-4326, and amendments thereto, or with respect to selecting a representative for the purposes of meeting and conferring or the adjustment of grievances”).”
Our University selected a representative for the adjustment of grievances during 2018 contract negotiations. You do not have the power to make up new rules when you feel upset. If KU administrators seek to change our Memorandum of Agreement, you may attempt to do so during contract negotiations. If KU administrators have reason to believe we have violated the law, you are bound to file a complaint. Again, this is the fillable PDF form you will need to file a charge against us. We invite you to do so in the hopes that this process will help resolve your issues and allow us to begin to build a harmonious and cooperative relationship.
“Given GTAC’s repeated unlawful conduct, we have directed Professors [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] to ignore your email and to remove you from any meeting you unlawfully choose to try to attend. “
GTAC workers absolutely have the right to representation at all meeting which relate to grievances, all meetings which are disciplinary save counseling, and all meetings which are investigatory in nature. Your denial of our right to representation is unlawful and we will be filing a charge against you as an agent of the University.
“Again, if you want a meeting to discuss conditions of employment that are appropriate subjects of bargaining, that meeting request should be sent to Julie Thornton. As you have repeatedly been told, she is the University’s designated representative for purposes of meeting and conferring with GTAC. When you are ready to meet and confer in a lawful and appropriate manner, please contact her.”
This is incorrect. As of June 24th, 2020, Ms. Thornton is the certified representative of the department of Human Resources Management for the purpose of requesting unit lists and other information per Article 4, Sections 1 and 3 of our Memorandum of Agreement. Again, if you would like Ms. Thornton to also take receipt of communications in place of the former Director of Human Resources Management, please contact us so that we may discuss a side note on the matter.
“When you are ready to meet and confer in a lawful and appropriate manner, please contact her.”
In closing, everything about your email is absurd. If you have a problem with GTAC, file a grievance or file a charge, but please refrain from sending any further hostile and harassing emails intended to intimidate GTAC workers and to discourage participation in our union.
To other KU administrators: We believe that KU works better when we work together. We sincerely want to establish harmonious and cooperative relations, and we stand ready to work together to fulfill our shared mission at the University of Kansas. We will not allow the harmful and hostile actions of some administrators to destroy our faith in and desire to create the University of Kansas that we all deserve. Although we will be filing suit against our University, we do so with the hope that we can use this process to help establish a future in which KU administrators decide to partner with faculty and adjunct workers, staff and support workers, and graduate workers to truly create the University we all deserve. Please contact us if you would like to begin establishing a positive relationship.
Sincerely,
Rose M. Welch
AFT-Kansas/GTAC
Sincerely,
Mike Leitch | Senior Associate
General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel | University of Kansas
245 Strong Hall, 1450 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Office: 785.864.3276
mleitch@ku.edu