Reed Declines To Recognize CSO Union Despite NLRB Ruling
On February 24, 2026, Reed College Community Safety Officers unanimously ratified their union membership with the Security Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA). On the same day, Vice President for Student Life Karnell McConnell-Black sent an email to the student body stating that “Reed is committed to engaging in good-faith bargaining [with the CSOs].”
The college retained Barran Liebman, LLP, a legal firm which specializes in representing employers in union disputes and which the college has previously used as counsel when employees attempt to unionize. This is the same firm which Reed retained against a 2018 unionization attempt by Housing Advisors. In that instance, Barran Liebman appealed to the National Labor Review Board, causing the HAs to withdraw their unionization petition over fears that Trump-appointed NLRB members would reinterpret previous rulings in order to remove the right to unionize for student workers at private colleges. Barran Liebman declined to comment for this article. As this article goes to print, the college has gone 187 days without proposing a negotiation date with the CSO union.
Regarding their participation in the SPFPA union, CSOs noted that an archaic NLRB rule prevented an initial 2018 effort to unionize under SEIU. Regarding this, SPFPA Chapter 56 President Lluvia Lopez said, “A recognized name with a lot of firepower forces [Reed] to reconsider trying to [force employees] to give up on the union.” Several CSOs, who wished to remain anonymous, felt that the impediments to unionization presented by the college were severe enough that the immense bargaining power and expertise provided by the SPFPA was the only realistic path to unionization.
On March 4, the union election was certified by the NLRB and the college filed a request to review the election. The request argued that dispatchers and shift leads do not qualify to participate in the same guard unit, despite a previous NLRB conclusion that they are entitled to do so and the participation of dispatchers at many other regional colleges in the same units as their guards. The college unilaterally determined that this request allowed them to violate the status quo, a period between unionization and contract ratification when the conditions of employment may not be changed.
After making this appeal to the NLRB, the college began to change the schedules of the CSOs. This development was announced on June 30 and went into effect on July 27. These new hours changed work days, moved night shift CSOs from four 10-hour shifts to five 8.5-hour shifts. The college also instituted 30-minute unpaid meal breaks during which CSOs are on call for “emergencies” ranging from student overdose or nuclear reactor security threats to, under certain extreme circumstances, a simple dorm unlock. CSOs consulted with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) about the legality of these meal breaks being unpaid and are now filing complaints with the BOLI. Representing the college’s position, Executive Director of Strategic Communications Sheena McFarland asserted that “[t]his process began well before the college became aware of any unionization efforts.”
On July 20, the CSOs sent an email to Community Safety Director Carl Peaster, President Audrey Bilger, and Karnell McConnell-Black asking for the schedule changes to be stopped. College administration replied that they would be in touch with union representatives. The CSO union filed an NLRB complaint alleging violations of the status quo on July 22. During unpaid meal periods and shifts where only one field officer is on duty, it is possible that non-emergency calls (i.e. unlocks) could be delayed by more than an hour. A CSO who wished to remain anonymous said, “We are here because we care deeply about the people we serve, and we will continue doing everything we can to keep the campus safe. But right now, our ability to do that effectively is being increasingly limited by staffing and operational constraints.”
On September 1, the NLRB declined the college’s request for review of the election, legally ending the matter unless the college chooses to challenge the ruling in the US Court of Appeals. Speaking for the college on August 31, McFarland stated, “If the [NLRB] determines that this is an appropriate unit, then the College looks forward to engaging in good faith.” Immediately after the ruling, McFarland could not confirm to the Quest that the college will honor the NLRB’s original decision on the union. She stated that “the ruling appears to be only a partial ruling” and “[it] is with Reed’s attorneys for further review.” The college is correct that the NLRB did not address concerns about the validity of dispatcher participation in the union when making its original decision, but the decision remains legally binding until it is struck down by a court of law.
Carl Peaster, who first learned of this development during an interview with the Quest, stated, “I find that unions make it easier to work with officers because it is like having a guidebook with which to make decisions.” Peaster expressed excitement for a swift resolution so that he could continue working with his officers on “doing what’s best for the officers and the Reed community.”
The college has currently not scheduled a negotiation date with the union, something which it is required to do promptly after a unionization vote. In the meantime, SPFPA Chapter 56 President Lopez requests for the college community to support the CSOs as they work to unionize. Lopez said, “Show them some love…communicate…make yourself known to them.”