The union representing about 350 non-faculty coaches who work for the 14 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference schools and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education have been unable to achieve a collective bargaining agreement after 13 months of negotiations.

As a result, the coaches recently voted overwhelmingly to authorize the union's leadership to call a strike if no agreement is reached.

No date for a potential work stoppage has been established. The vote authorizing the executive council of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF) to call a strike was approved by 91 percent of the 306 coaches who voted.

"This vote demonstrates the unity of our coaches," said William E. Fulmer, state APSCUF president. "Our coaches deserve a fair contract and our bargaining team is prepared to negotiate one."

The state system does not attach a great deal of importance on the vote. "Announcement of the strike authorization has no impact on the negotiations from our perspective," said Kenn Marshall, a spokesman for the State System of Higher Education. "We view it as just another step in the process."

Marshall noted that the APSCUF conducted a strike authorization vote late in September 1999, when it was involved in collective bargaining talks with the state system on behalf of the faculties at the 14 universities.

Job security a goal

The key issue in the negotiations has been job security for the coaches. The union has proposed more secure employment for its members after five years of service through three-year "rollover" contracts. It also has proposed for coaches to go through a grievance and arbitration process during contract renewal disputes.

The APSCUF's proposal calls for a decision to be made to grant or deny a coach regular employee status in his fifth year. If regular status is denied, the coach may have the decision reviewed through the grievance and arbitration process if the coach scored at "meets expectations" or above on annual evaluations in each of the previous three years or four out of the previous five years.

A coach who is granted regular status would be given a rolling three-year contract. In any year that the coach does not score "meets expectations" or above on evaluations, he or she would not be granted a one-year renewal to the contract. If the coach fails to score "meets expectations" or above for two successive years, his or her contract would expire at the end of the third year.

The coaches' proposal would allow a coach who faces non-renewal of a contract to file a grievance and keep his or her position if the arbitrator found that the evaluations on which the non-renewal was based were arbitrary and capricious.

In its offer, the state system addresses job security through contracts of employment. After five full consecutive years of employment, full-time head coaches automatically would receive a three-year contract that can be extended annually by one year. Full-time assistant coaches, after five full consecutive years of employment, would be given a two-year contract that can be extended annually by one year.

The state system's proposal, however, does give the university presidents, or their designees, the sole discretion to terminate or buy out the contracts of employment at any time. In most cases, such decisions could not be reviewed through the grievance and arbitration procedure.

"We all accept the insecurity that is associated with coaching," said Deirdre Kane, head women's basketball coach at West Chester University of Pennsylvania and a member of the APSCUF's coaches negotiations team. "But the three-year rollover contract with the tie-in to evaluations does help in some regard.

"If a coach does not receive 'meets expectations' evaluations one year, he or she has time to improve. If it happens for a second year in a row, he or she has time to prepare for what lies ahead."

"Coaches have mostly worked with one-year contracts with their individual universities," said Marshall. "Our offer increases the length to three years for full-time head coaches and two years for full-time assistant coaches.

"However, the union's offer contains language similar to that regarding tenure granted to faculty. We do not feel that is appropriate."

Salary gap

Both sides also are offering different concepts on salaries. The union is proposing automatic salary increases that would be implemented based solely on coaches' years of service, plus a 3.5 percent pay increase for all coaches in the fall of 2001.

In addition, the union's offer includes the establishment of a pool of money at each university of at least 1.5 percent of the cumulative value of all coaches' salaries for merit raises. Coaches receiving evaluations of "significantly exceeds expectations" for the 2000-01 academic year would receive a merit raise of two levels on the proposal's pay scale, and those earning a mark of "at or above expectations" would merit an increase of one level.

The state system is offering a range in which salaries for head coaches and assistant coaches would fall, with no automatic years-of-service increments. Salaries would be negotiated within the ranges between each coach and the university.

Also included in the state system's proposal are a general increase of 2 percent for all coaches on January 1 of both 2001 and 2002, and merit pools of 3 percent in the fall of 2000 and 3.5 percent in the fall of 2001. The proposal is not specific on what basis a coach would earn a merit increase or on its amount.

However, since no agreement has been reached, the state system withdrew the salary increase portion of its proposal for the first year. Pay increases to coaches for the 2000-01 fiscal year were granted based on prior practices of the universities.

There is considerable difference between the two proposals on the minimum salary full-time coaches would earn. The lowest level on the union's pay scale is $25,000 for an assistant coach in a single sport and $35,000 for a head coach with responsibilities in only one sport.

The salary ranges for full-time coaches in the state system's proposal have minimums of $20,000 for assistants and $25,000 for head coaches.

Marshall indicated that the state system remains confident that an agreement will be reached without a work stoppage. "We figured there would be a long meeting period," he said. "Since this is the first time we are negotiating with the coaches, we really are starting from scratch in terms of a contract."

Kane said the coaches also expected lengthy negotiations. "The first time you do anything of this nature, there will be some pain involved," she said.

The APSCUF executive council will not select a strike date until it has received a recommendation from its coaches negotiations team. Nonetheless, PSAC Commissioner Steve Murray has been considering the ramifications of a work stoppage.

"I have been in contact with NCAA staff regarding such issues of student-athletes' eligibility and our teams' ability to participate in championships," Murray said. "However, with no strike date set and no idea of how many coaches will participate in a stoppage, there mostly is a 'wait-and-see' attitude."

Murray indicated that the ongoing negotiations have had little effect on conference operations. In fact, he said he has had only one conversation with someone from outside the PSAC concerning the situation. "Everyone has been very professional, and we are enjoying a great year so far as we celebrate the 50th year of competition as a conference," he said.

The next negotiating session is scheduled for October 24.