- LFU Executive Board Election Results
-
Longy Faculty Union
-
LFU meeting minutes
>
- Since June 2014
-
Before June 2014
>
- LFU Meeting Minutes 2010-04-02 to 2014-05-14
- LFU Meeting Minutes 2013 >
-
LFU Meeting Minutes 2011
>
- LFU Special Meeting Minutes 2011/03/04
- LFU Executive Board Meeting Minutes 2011/03/04
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 03/02/11
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 02/18/11
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 01/31/11
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 01/21/11
- LFU Special Meeting minutes 01/11/11
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 01/11/11
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 01/05/11
-
LFU Meeting Minutes 2010 Q4
>
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 11/30/10
- LFU Special Meeting minutes 11/16/10
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 11/16/10
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 11/08/10
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 10/19/10
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 09/27/10
- LFU Membership Meeting minutes 09/14/10
- LFU Executive Board Meeting minutes 09/14/10
- LFU Meeting Minutes 2010 Q3 >
- LFU Meeting Minutes 2010 Q2 >
- LFU Constitution and By-Laws >
- LFU post-election >
-
LFU pre-election
>
- ELECTION RESULTS!!!
- It's time to make time to vote!
- Your Colleagues Speak!
- Your Colleagues Sign!
- Voter eligibility list
- Letter from President Mike Scott, Berklee Faculty Union
- Letter from Bargaining Committee Member, Adam Scott, Manhattan School of Music
- Letter from Boston Musicians' Association Board
- Discussion gatherings 2010
- Discussion gatherings 2009
- Election pamphlet
- Election announcement
- Your Labor Union Rights Under the Law
- Why we support a faculty union at the Longy School of Music
-
LFU meeting minutes
>
-
Committee Election Results
- Committee Elections 2024
- Committee Elections 2023
- Committee Elections 2022
- Committee Elections 2021
- Committee Elections 2020
- Committee Elections 2019
- Committee Elections 2018
- Committee Elections 2017
- Committee Elections 2016
- Committee Elections 2015
- Committee Elections September 2014
- Call for Nominations April 2014
- Committee Elections December 2013
- Committee Elections May 2011
- Robert Honeysucker Scholarship
- 2020 Successor Collective Bargaining Agreement
- NLRB Certification of Representative 2/1/2010
- Longy Summer Programs 2016
- NLRB Decision and Direction of Election 12/10/2009
- 2015 Successor Collective Bargaining Agreement
- Ratification Results, 2015 Successor CBA
- 2015 Successor CBA---Schedule of Meetings and Vote
- Response to Boston Globe Article, October 20, 2015
- NLRB Issues Complaint against Longy 2015-05-29
- LFU News Current Issue
- Response to School Email to Faculty on January 30, 2015
- Longy Summer Institutes Hang in the Blance
-
Negotiation Proposals
-
Successor Contract Proposals
>
- LFU Proposals
- Longy Proposals
- Contract Proposal Comparison
- CP closing LFU proposal 2013.07.01 >
-
Community Programs closing negotiations
>
- CP closing LFU proposals >
-
CP closing Longy proposals
>
- LFU CP closing Longy proposal 2013.08.09
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.07.12 40 and over
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.07.12 under 40
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.07.08-2
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.07.08-1
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.06.13
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.06.12
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.06.04
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.05.17
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.05.07 v.2
- CP closing Longy proposal 2013.05.07 v.1
- 2012 Reappointment Proposals >
- 2011-2014 Contract Proposals >
-
Successor Contract Proposals
>
- Long-Standing Past Practice Regarding Studio Classes
- LFU News
-
LFU Financials
- Initial Collective Bargaining Agreement
-
National Labor Relations Board Filings and Decisions
- NLRB Issues Complaint against Longy 2015-05-29
- NLRB Administrative Law Judge Decision 2015-01-07
- NLRB Files Brief to Judge in Case Against Longy 2014-12-23
- NLRB Issues Amendment to Complaint Against Longy 2014-10-27
- NLRB Issues Complaint against Longy 2014-08-28
- Settlement Notice 2013-11-20
- Settlement Agreement 2013-09-25
- NLRB Issues Consolidated Complaint 2013-06-28
- Motion for Withdrawal of Charges 3/11/2011
- Judge Saris Memorandum and Order 1/4/2011
- NLRB filing to Judge Saris 12/9/2010
- NLRB Files Amended Consolidated Complaint 12/6/2010
- NLRB Files Petition for Injunction 11/16/10 >
- NLRB issues Complaint 10/15/10
- Certification of Representative 2/1/2010
- Decision and Direction of Election 12/9/2009
- LFU on Facebook
- LFU on Twitter
-
LFU in the Press
- Advocate Feb 2011
- Cambridge Chronicle 1/11/2011
- Boston Globe 1/8/2011
- Boston Musical Intelligencer 1/7/2011
- Boston Musical Intelligencer 1/2/2011
- AFT Faculty and College Excellence 12/8/2010
- Boston Musical Inelligencer 12/4/2010
- Boston Globe 11/30/2010
- Cambridge Chronicle 11/30/2010
- Cambridge Chronicle 10/26/10
- Boston Globe 8/13/2010
- Boston Globe Exhibitionist blog 8/12/2010
- Cambridge Chronicle 05/20/10
- International Musician May 2010
- Boston Globe 04/01/10
-
Letters
- LFU to Karen Zorn et al 2/18/2014
- Victor Rosenbaum Op-Ed 2013-04-11
- LFU to Karen Zorn 12/5/12
- LFU to Musicians of Minnesota Orchestra 11/8/12
- Karen Zorn to Board of Visitors 08/26/10
- LFU to Board of Trustees 08/11/10
- Students to Longy President and Trustees 7/1/2010
- AFT MA President Tom Gosnell to Karen Zorn 3/23/2010
- Faculty realignment 3/19/2010
- How can I help?
- General Information
- Contact Us
- About Us
"Weingarten" Rights
The rights of employees to have union representation at investigatory interviews were clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975). These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights.
Employees have Weingarten rights only during investigatory interviews. An investigatory interview occurs when a supervisor either questions an employee to obtain information that could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his or her conduct.
If an employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequences may result from what he or she says, the employee has the right to request union representation at the meeting. Management is not required to inform the employee of his or her Weingarten rights; it is the employee's responsibility to know them and make the request. Click here to download a form letter you can use to make such a request.
When the employee makes the request for a union representative to be present, management has three options:
Employers will often assert that the only role of a union representative in an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion. The Supreme Court, however, clearly acknowledges a representative's right to assist and counsel workers during the interview.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that during an investigatory interview management must inform the union representative of the subject of the interrogation. The union representative must also be allowed to speak privately with the employee before the interview. During the questioning, the union representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics.
While the interview is in progress, the union representative can not tell the employee what to say, but he may advise them on how to answer a question. At the end of the interview, the union representative can add information to support the employee's case.
On June 15, 2004, the National Labor Relations Board ruled by a 3-2 vote that employees who work in a nonunionized workplace are not entitled under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to have a coworker accompany them to an interview with their employer, even if the affected employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in discipline.
This decision effectively reversed the July 2000 decision of the Clinton Board that extended Weingarten rights to nonunion employees.
The rights of employees to have union representation at investigatory interviews were clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975). These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights.
Employees have Weingarten rights only during investigatory interviews. An investigatory interview occurs when a supervisor either questions an employee to obtain information that could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his or her conduct.
If an employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequences may result from what he or she says, the employee has the right to request union representation at the meeting. Management is not required to inform the employee of his or her Weingarten rights; it is the employee's responsibility to know them and make the request. Click here to download a form letter you can use to make such a request.
When the employee makes the request for a union representative to be present, management has three options:
- it can stop questioning until the union representative arrives,
- it can call off the interview or,
- it can tell the employee that it will call off the interview unless the employee voluntarily gives up his or her rights to a union representative (an option the emplovee should always refuse.)
Employers will often assert that the only role of a union representative in an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion. The Supreme Court, however, clearly acknowledges a representative's right to assist and counsel workers during the interview.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that during an investigatory interview management must inform the union representative of the subject of the interrogation. The union representative must also be allowed to speak privately with the employee before the interview. During the questioning, the union representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics.
While the interview is in progress, the union representative can not tell the employee what to say, but he may advise them on how to answer a question. At the end of the interview, the union representative can add information to support the employee's case.
On June 15, 2004, the National Labor Relations Board ruled by a 3-2 vote that employees who work in a nonunionized workplace are not entitled under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to have a coworker accompany them to an interview with their employer, even if the affected employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in discipline.
This decision effectively reversed the July 2000 decision of the Clinton Board that extended Weingarten rights to nonunion employees.