Miami University and FAM/AAUP-AFT continued bargaining for a successor collective bargaining agreement through Oct. 14, 2026, after reaching tentative agreement on the non-economic package on Sept. 29.

Since the last update, Miami University and the Faculty Alliance of Miami, AAUP-AFT (FAM) have met five times: Sept. 18, Sept. 29, Oct. 5, Oct. 9, and Oct. 14. After reaching tentative agreement on the non-economic package on Sept. 29, the parties turned their focus to the remaining economic package. The prior agreement expired on June 30, 2026, and its terms continue to govern while bargaining proceeds.

Sept. 29 Non-Economic Tentative Agreement

The Sept. 29 tentative agreement covers the following articles and items:

• Appointment and Promotion of Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty (Article 12)
• Appointment, Renewal and Promotion of TCPL Faculty (Article 13)
• Performance Counseling and Performance Improvement Plans (Article 17)
• Separability (Article 9)
• Leaves (Article 18)
• Professional Development Leaves and Appointments (Article 19)
• Labor-Management Meetings (Article 5)
• Duration (Article 26), with a term running through June 30, 2029
• The union’s withdrawal of its proposed memoranda of understanding on Artificial Intelligence and on Immigration Enforcement Access and Information Sharing, and of its proposed Shared Governance article

These provisions remain tentative until the parties reach agreement on the full contract, FAM membership ratifies the agreement, and the Board of Trustees approves it.

Progress on the Economic Package

From Sept. 18 through Oct. 14, the parties exchanged multiple economic package proposals addressing Compensation (Article 14), Benefits (Article 15), Faculty Evaluations (Article 16), Grievance and Arbitration (Article 21), Financial Exigency and Academic Reorganization (Article 22), and Management Rights (Article 8). During that period, the parties reached alignment on Management Rights, Financial Exigency and Academic Reorganization, and Faculty Evaluations, subject to acceptance of the package as a whole.

Both sides also moved on compensation. The university increased its proposed annual base-salary increases for AY 2027–28 from 2.50% to 2.75% and for AY 2028–29 from 2.00% to 2.50%, and increased its proposed ratification payment from $500 to $800. The Union reduced its proposed annual increases from 4.25%, 4.00%, and 3.75% to 3.75%, 3.50%, and 3.50%.

Oct. 14 Economic Package Exchange

On Oct. 14, the union presented a revised economic package, and the university responded later that day. The university’s proposal is now with the union for response.

Compensation.

The university’s Oct. 14 proposal provides annual base-salary increases of 3.00% for AY 2026–27, 2.75% for AY 2027–28, and 2.50% for AY 2028–29. The union’s proposal provides 3.75%, 3.50%, and 3.50%, respectively. Both proposals condition the increases on an overall annual evaluation rating that meets or exceeds performance expectations, apply the increases prospectively, and provide no retroactive adjustment or back pay.

The parties are aligned on several other compensation terms:

• Minimum promotional increases of $5,000 (TCPL to Associate), $7,250 (TCPL to Senior or Full), $6,000 (to Associate Professor), and $9,250 (to Full Professor)
• Minimum salaries of $60,000 for TCPL faculty and $64,000 for Tenure-Track faculty
• An overload rate of $1,200 per credit at all campuses
• A merit pool for bargaining unit faculty if the Board approves larger increases for non-bargaining unit employees in AY 2027–28 or AY 2028–29

The parties also remain apart on the ratification payment. The university proposes a one-time $800 payment, while the union proposes $1,250. Both proposals provide for payment within 45 days after ratification and Board approval.

Benefits. 

On health premiums, the parties are aligned on a 7.5% cap on health insurance premium increases through Dec. 31, 2027, a 6.5% cap beginning Jan. 1, 2028, and a parity provision limiting bargaining unit premium increases to the increase applied to similarly situated non-bargaining unit employees.

The parties have also converged on a different framework for limiting plan-design changes. Earlier proposals placed limits on increases to individual plan features. Both current proposals instead require plan changes to remain substantially similar in the aggregate, measured across the medical plan as a whole, and cap the aggregate share of total university healthcare-plan costs borne by enrolled employees. This approach replaces feature-by-feature limits on deductibles, co-payments, networks, prescription drug terms, and other individual plan components.

The framework protects faculty against cost shifting across the plan as a whole while preserving the university’s flexibility to manage individual plan terms as healthcare costs and offerings evolve. The remaining issue is the level of the aggregate employee-cost share cap: 29% under the university’s proposal and 25.5% under the Union’s.

Grievance and Arbitration. 

Both parties maintained their prior Grievance and Arbitration proposals on Oct. 14, leaving Article 21 open. The parties are aligned on substantial portions of the article, including the grievance procedure, mediation, arbitrator selection, and core limitations on arbitral review. The university has also materially narrowed its position over the course of bargaining.

The remaining differences are discrete but significant. The university’s proposal excludes from grievance and arbitration matters committed to the university’s sole discretion, as well as claims based solely on past practice, custom, implied obligation, or shared governance recommendations, unless the Agreement expressly provides otherwise. Absent express contractual authorization, the university’s proposal would also preclude an arbitrator from:

• Awarding relief to anyone other than the named grievant
• Awarding prospective relief beyond the Agreement’s express terms
• Awarding punitive or consequential damages, penalties, interest, or attorneys’ fees
• Relying on past practice to vary the Agreement’s express terms

The university’s proposal further provides that arbitrators may not interpret, invalidate, or modify Board policies adopted pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Sections 3345.45 through 3345.454. The union’s proposal does not include these limitations. The parties also remain apart on the Provost’s role at Step Three: the union proposes that the Provost “will meet” with the union, while the university proposes that the Provost “may confer” with the union.

These differences extend beyond Article 21 because several other provisions incorporate its limitations on arbitral review. For example, both the Performance Counseling and Performance Improvement Plan provisions in the September 29 tentative agreement and the parties’ aligned Faculty Evaluations language depend on Article 21’s limitations on arbitral review of academic judgment.

Looking Ahead

The economic package is now narrowed to three open areas: Compensation, Benefits, and Grievance and Arbitration. The university remains committed to bargaining in good faith toward an agreement that recognizes faculty contributions while meeting its responsibilities to students and sustaining its educational mission. The parties are scheduled to meet again by Zoom on Oct. 26, 2026.

Back to Updates