Answers from the collective bargaining agreement as it read the day it happened, cited layer by layer, and every Step 1 grievance response drafted on the contract clock
Every answer from the clause in force that day, and every Step 1 on the contract clock.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Collective Bargaining Agreement & Grievance Search gives labor relations staff and managers cited answers from union contracts, side letters, MOUs and arbitration awards. It answers in one plain sentence first, then shows the clause's lineage, checked for the date the incident happened, and drafts each Step 1 grievance response on the contract clock for a specialist to approve.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
A collective bargaining agreement at a public university is a base contract plus years of side letters, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), settlements and arbitration awards that change or interpret it, and each bargaining unit's contract says something different. At Halden State University, seven units cover 14,600 represented employees, with 40 side letters, 63 MOUs and 118 arbitration awards on top of seven agreements. Article 12.3 of the graduate workers' agreement has been amended by a side letter, extended by an MOU and interpreted by an award; the PDF a chair opens shows none of that.
So managers answer from the expired PDF, or from a proposal they heard about at the table, and treat two units the same when one pays hours over 20 in a week and the other pays overtime after 40. Past outcomes on the same article live in the labor relations specialist's memory, and every union grievance runs on a clock counted in working days. Collective Bargaining Agreement & Grievance Search puts seven agents in front of that reading, so the specialist decides and approves instead of hunting for the layer that controls.
Estimated split of the working days behind one Step 1 response, by hand and with the agents, for a grievance like GW-2026-031 under a 10-working-day clock. Our arithmetic, kept modest; the clock agent measures the real on-time rate.
Seven agents answer from the unit's contract, date every layer, compare units, pull past outcomes and draft Step 1; the manager signs, a specialist approves, payroll releases.
Wednesday, October 21, 2026. Dr. Helen Takahashi, Chair of Chemistry at Halden State University, supervises 46 graduate assistants and 12 lab staff in two bargaining units. Here is her question, and the grievance behind it, screen by screen in the working solution.
She picks the Graduate Workers unit and asks: "A TA worked 24 hours in week 9 grading exams. Do we owe anything?" The agents read the unit's file, found 23 passages and used 4. The verdict comes first, with the arithmetic beside it: 24.0 hours worked, a weekly limit of 20.0, 4.0 over, at the rate in force.
Yes, pay owed: 4 hours at $31.40 an hour, $125.60, in the next paycheck. Confidence 0.95, threshold 0.85.
Four layers, newest on top: the award in GW-2023-041 that interprets "assigned hours", MOU-2026-02 that extended the agreement and set this year's $31.40 rate, Side Letter SL-2025-04 that controls, and the base article with "averaged over the semester" struck through. Week 9 ran October 12–18, 2026, and the currency agent confirms every cited layer was in force that week.
The confidential bargaining file is never read for a manager's question; a locked line shows only that one exists.
Four past grievances on Article 12.3: three paid, one denied. GW-2024-017, in Biology, settled at Step 2 on the same point for 3.5 hours. The cross-unit agent adds that the Research and Technical Staff contract answers differently, overtime at 1.5 times after 40 hours under Article 18.1, and she supervises 12 people in that unit.
For the specialist briefing managers, the cross-unit agent compares hours over the limit and overtime across all seven contracts: six differ from the Graduate Workers rule. 31 managers supervise people in two of these units, and every row cites the layer in force today.
Rafael moves the date back to February 1, 2025, and the currency agent rebuilds the stack. Before the side letter, the base wording controlled and hours were averaged over the semester, at a rate of $29.20 under MOU-2024-06. Layers not yet in force, or expired, are marked.
A grievance on this is already open: GW-2026-031, filed October 19 by Amina Farouk, union steward, for Jordan Ellis, graduate assistant in CHEM 1210. Article 30.2 allows 10 working days, so the Step 1 response is due November 2. The drafting agent writes it, granting $125.60 and citing each layer.
Dr. Takahashi signs as the Step 1 respondent with decision S1-G, Grant. Rafael approves it and it goes to the union through the grievance case log; the person who signed can never approve, and a return needs a reason code from RT-1 to RT-4. The gradebook export attached to the grievance held 112 student names and ID numbers, and the privacy agent removed them before the file was stored.
$125.60 is under the $2,500 director threshold and follows GW-2024-017, so no new precedent.
Pay adjustment PA-2026-0388 for $125.60 waits in the queue for Nora to release. The queue holds 41 open grievances, each on its own unit's clock: CP-2026-006 is a day late and escalated to the director, and TR-2026-019 is due today.
Questions and grievances are grouped by article for successor bargaining with the graduate workers. Article 12.3 drew 138 manager questions and 9 grievances this fiscal year and is in the bargaining brief. Only Labor Relations sees this screen, and nothing on it is used to answer a manager.
The answer, the cited layers, the draft, the signature, the approval and the pay adjustment are all on the trail, with who, what, when, why and the evidence, and agents marked. An arbitration pack bundles the lineage as of the incident date, past outcomes and approvals, with student identifiers removed and the bargaining file left out.
The same question and grievance, seen by the four people who carry it: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents answer from the unit's contract, date every layer, compare units, pull past outcomes and draft Step 1; the manager signs, a specialist approves, payroll releases.
Removes student names and ID numbers from questions and grievance exhibits before they are stored.
Finds the governing clause in the unit's file and writes a one-sentence verdict with citations.
Builds the clause lineage and marks the layer in force on the incident date, striking superseded wording.
Asks the same question of the other six contracts and warns when the answer differs for someone the manager also supervises.
Pulls grievances, settlements and arbitration awards on the same article with their remedies.
Drafts the Step 1 response against the contract clock, with the timesheet and other evidence attached.
Tracks every step's due date in working days, reminds the respondent and escalates late steps to the director.
Approves every response; the director over $2,500. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Labor Relations can ask about any article, grievance or unit in plain words. Every answer cites the layer or the case log, then opens the screen to act on.
What did Article 12.3 say on February 1, 2025?
On February 1, 2025, the base wording was in force: no more than 20 hours a week, averaged over the semester. Side Letter SL-2025-04 ended averaging on March 1, 2025. The rate was $29.20 under MOU-2024-06.
Which grievances are due this week?
Two Step 1 responses: TR-2026-019 is due today (Trades, 7 working days) and CT-2026-044 on October 23. CP-2026-006 is 1 day past its Step 2 clock and was escalated to Marguerite Ellison.
Does any other unit treat extra hours differently?
Six of seven do. Research and Technical Staff pays 1.5 times after 40 hours; Trades after 8 hours a day; Postdocs have no cap. 31 managers supervise people in two of these units.
Is GW-2026-031 consistent with past outcomes?
Yes. The draft pays 4 hours at $31.40, $125.60. GW-2024-017 paid 3.5 hours and GW-2025-030 paid 2 hours on the same point, and the award in GW-2023-041 counts grading to a deadline. It is under $2,500, so a specialist approves without the director.
12 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Clocks, thresholds and retention are settings. The systems administrator proposes a change, and it takes effect only when the Director of Labor Relations approves it.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Answer without a specialist at or above | Confidence 0.85 | Below it, the question goes to a Labor Relations Specialist |
| Director approval on a Step 1 response | Over $2,500 or a new precedent | Step 2 decisions always go to the director |
| Step 1 clock, from each contract | 10 working days for Graduate Workers | 7 for Trades, 5 for Campus Police; set per unit with Step 2 and arbitration-demand windows |
| Remind the respondent | 2 working days before a due date | 2 or 3 working days; late steps go to the Director of Labor Relations |
| University holidays | Not counted as working days | Taken from the HR calendar |
| Routed question clock | 1 business day | 1 or 2 business days for a specialist to answer |
| Grievance file retention | 7 years after close | 7 or 10 years; a legal hold overrides retention |
| Question log retention | 3 years | 3 or 5 years |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: FMCS, Average Arbitrator Per Diem Rates, July 2026 (an average of $2,380 a hearing day, range $1,000–$4,000, in one large state) · FERPA, 34 CFR Part 99. "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "typical" = published figures · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest. Halden State University, its bargaining units, contracts, grievances and the people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Collective Bargaining Agreement & Grievance Search gives labor relations staff and managers cited answers from union contracts, side letters, MOUs and arbitration awards. It answers in one plain sentence first, then shows the clause's lineage, checked for the date the incident happened, and drafts each Step 1 grievance response on the contract clock for a specialist to approve.
The currency agent builds each article's lineage from its effective dates and marks the layer in force on the incident date, striking superseded wording. When an expired agreement has been extended by an MOU while the parties bargain, the extension controls; a bargaining proposal is never cited as current. Any article can be replayed to an earlier date.
When a grievance is filed, the clock agent counts the Step 1 due date in working days from the unit's grievance article, and the drafting agent writes the response citing the lineage and attaching the evidence. The manager signs, a labor relations specialist approves, and payroll releases any money. Late steps escalate to the Director of Labor Relations.
Yes. The answer comes only from the unit the question is about, and the cross-unit agent asks the same question of the other contracts and warns when the answer differs for someone the manager also supervises. It never applies another unit's rule.
No. Managers see only their units' contracts, set from directory groups. The confidential bargaining file stays with Labor Relations, is never read for a manager's answer, and is left out of every arbitration pack.
Where a grievance touches grades, the privacy agent removes student names and ID numbers before the exhibit is stored, the original is never kept, and exports draw only from the redacted file. FERPA governs those student records.
Yes. The agents find, date and draft; they never send a response, move money or extend a deadline. A question below the 0.85 confidence threshold goes to a specialist, the person who signs a response can never approve it, and a specialist can override any answer with a reason code (AO-1 to AO-4), which holds the answer and is logged in the audit trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your agreements, side letters, MOUs, awards and past grievance files, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own units first.
Every case reaches its committee complete, on the criteria in force, every letter tested.
1-min demoFaculty Activity ReportingFaculty confirm a prefilled year in minutes, with every line tied to its source.
1-min demoFaculty Search & Hiring ComplianceEvery screen-out reason tied to the posting, and no equivalency request left unread.
1-min demoWe'll run Collective Bargaining Agreement & Grievance Search on one of your units' agreements, side letters and past grievances.