State Personnel - Collective Bargaining - Nontenure Track Faculty
Summary
SB6 expands collective bargaining rights for certain nontenure track faculty at Maryland public higher education institutions. The bill defines “nontenure track faculty” to include full-time, part-time, and adjunct employees at University System of Maryland institutions, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland whose primary duties are academic instruction or comparable academic responsibilities, such as teachers, researchers, and department heads. It excludes faculty at fully online institutions and positions fully funded by research or service grants, contracts, or clinical revenues.
The bill amends the State Personnel and Pensions Article to remove these employees from the general exclusions that previously kept faculty and certain contingent or contractual employees outside the collective bargaining framework, and it creates a separate bargaining unit for nontenure track faculty. It also preserves existing exclusions for supervisory, managerial, and confidential employees, while clarifying that each covered institution must maintain separate bargaining units. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
SB6 changes Maryland labor law for public higher education by bringing a new category of faculty into the collective bargaining system under the State Personnel and Pensions Article. It affects the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland by requiring them to recognize a distinct bargaining unit for eligible nontenure track faculty and to treat those employees as covered for collective bargaining purposes. The bill does not extend these rights to fully online institutions or to grant-, contract-, or clinically funded positions, and it leaves existing exclusions for managerial, supervisory, and confidential employees in place.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad legislative support. It passed the Senate 32-12 and the House 92-34, indicating clear majorities in both chambers but not unanimity. The available record shows no committee transcript debate, so the public discussion reflected in the materials is limited; however, the favorable committee report and successful floor votes suggest the measure was generally viewed positively as an expansion of labor rights for higher education faculty.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern whether nontenure track faculty should be treated like other bargaining-eligible employees and how broadly that category should be defined. The bill specifically excludes faculty at fully online institutions and positions funded entirely through grants, contracts, or clinical revenues, which suggests concern about administrative flexibility and funding-source differences. Another likely issue is the creation of a separate bargaining unit for this group, which may raise questions for institutions about bargaining structure, labor relations, and the scope of employee coverage, especially for employees with mixed duties or partially funded positions.