Opinion ID: 2109211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tenure and the Collective Bargaining Agreement

Text: Dr. Hahn asserts that his status as a tenured faculty member protects him from the RIF. In addressing this assertion, the University president concluded, first, that tenure did not entitle Dr. Hahn to heightened seniority, and, second, that even if it did, the provisions of the CBA precluded tenured faculty from receiving special protection during a RIF. Dr. Hahn disputes both of those conclusions. The CBA contains several provisions concerning RIFs. It also states that [t]he granting of tenure to a bargaining unit member shall not constitute relief from the application of the full provisions of this Agreement. Because the University regulations provide that the CBA overrides the regulations if they are inconsistent, see 8 DCMR § 1800.3, 39 D.C. Register 4795, [2] a tenured faculty member is given no heightened seniority for the purposes of a RIF conducted pursuant to the CBA. Dr. Hahn argues, however, that for two reasons the CBA does not apply to him. [3] The first reason advanced by Dr. Hahn is that that the CBA does not apply because it has expired. Article XXXII of the CBA states that it is effective from October 1, 1988, through September 30, 1993, and it is undisputed that the University and the Union have not entered into a successor agreement. Under general principles of contract law, however: [W]hen a contract lapses but the parties to the contract continue to act as if they are performing under a contract, the material terms of the prior contract will survive intact unless either one of the parties clearly and manifestly indicates, through words or through conduct, that it no longer wishes to continue to be bound thereby, or both parties mutually intend that the terms not survive. Luden's, Inc. v. Local Union No. 6, Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers' Int'l Union, 28 F.3d 347, 355-356 (3d Cir. 1994); see also 2 SAMUEL WILLISTON, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 6:42, at 452 (Richard A. Lord 4th ed.1991). This rule has been applied in cases involving CBAs. See Sheriff v. Medel Electric Co., 412 A.2d 38, 42 (D.C.1980); Luden's, 28 F.3d at 355-356; McNealy v. Caterpillar, Inc., 139 F.3d 1113 (7th Cir.1998) (`conduct manifesting an intention to abide and be bound by the terms of an agreement' suffices to support a finding of a CBA) (citation omitted). But see Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home v. Local 144, National Health & Human Services Employers Union, 107 F.Supp.2d 222, 226 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (declaring that [p]ost-CBA expiration conduct occurs within a different legal paradigm than conduct pursuant to an ordinary employment contract); Teamsters Local 122 v. August A. Busch & Co., 932 F.Supp. 374, 380 (D.Mass.1996) (declining to follow Luden's ). The Luden's doctrine is well established, and we adhere to it in this case. We hold, accordingly, that because the parties to the CBA, which expired in 1993, continue to act as if they are performing under [that] contract, and because there is no indication that either the University or the Union has a contrary intention, the material terms of the CBA survive intact, Luden's, 28 F.3d at 355, and are binding on both parties. Both the University and the Union appear to be abiding by the terms of the CBA even though it expired more than eight years ago. Indeed, the suit in federal court, brought by the Union in response to the 1997 RIF, as well as the settlement agreement reached after the suit ended, shows plainly that both parties are adhering to the RIF provisions of the expired CBA. In these circumstances, we hold that the provisions of the CBA are still in effect and apply to Dr. Hahn. Dr. Hahn's alternative argument is that the CBA does not apply to him because he is not a member of the bargaining unit, and thus his tenure is of a different nature from that to which the CBA refers. According to Dr. Hahn, he received his tenure by executive appointment when he was appointed dean pursuant to 8 DCMR § 212.4, [4] not through the normal tenure process described in 8 DCMR §§ 1460-1470. [5] Because tenure by executive appointment and tenure by UDC's tenure committee are creatures of different origin, Dr. Hahn maintains, he was not given tenure as a bargaining unit member within the meaning of the CBA, and thus the CBA provisions nullifying the effect of tenure do not apply to him. We are not persuaded. There is no basis to conclude that because Dr. Hahn's tenure had a different origin from tenure granted under the general tenure regulations, it is somehow of a different species. The University regulations do not distinguish between grants of tenure under 8 DCMR § 212.4 and those made in the more traditional way under 8 DCMR §§ 1460-1470. In fact, 8 DCMR § 1465, which sets forth the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of tenured professors, speaks only of tenured faculty in general, and thus by its silence suggests that the two different types of tenure are identical in all but origin. We find no support in the regulations, or anywhere else, for Dr. Hahn's contrary argument. [6]