Update From The FSU Grievance Committee
10/20/2020
Dear Colleague,
The FSU Grievance Committee (GC) has been very active this year. There are currently 6 formal, pending grievances that the GC is working on, including the grievance related to Summer 2020 distance learning changes that was referenced in a prior communication from the Core Bargaining Team. In addition to the formal grievances, the GC has spent countless hours on grievance and contract related matters with FSU members that have not resulted in grievances. These matters include: informal resolution of contract violations, apprising members of their contract rights, providing advice on and support for Title IX investigations, dismissal cases and other potential disciplinary hearings, attending Weingarten hearings (see below), attending Labor-Management meetings, attending GC meetings, assessing potential contract language issues for contract negotiations, and much more.
We would like to report on a few of the formal and informal pending grievance and contract related matters that we are addressing or have addressed. (For reasons of confidentiality, we cannot report on all the pending grievance- and contract-related matters that we are dealing with).
We also encourage you to read this FSU primer on the grievance procedure. In addition, we strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with Weingarten Rights - that is, your right to have a union witness present for any meeting with your supervisor that is of an investigatory nature or may have disciplinary repercussions (see the Grievance tab on the FSU website for more info, including a link to a more detailed MTA primer on Weingarten Rights).
Members who believe their contract rights have been violated have 60 days from the date of the infraction to file a grievance (see Article 25 of the contract). Contact the FSU office if you have questions about your contract rights or if you think your contract rights may have been violated.
Previous grievance updates can be seen here.
From the FSU Grievance Committee:
Paul Dyson, Senior Lecturer II, English
Katie D’Urso, MTA Field Rep
Ellen Frank, Senior Lecturer, Economics
Gillian MacNaughton, Associate Professor, SGISD
Glover Martin, Lecturer, Biology
Laurie Milliken, Associate Professor, Exercise and Health Sciences
Lorenzo Nencioli, FSU Membership Coordinator
Update on Grievances and Contract Related Matters
FILED AND SETTLED GRIEVANCES
Summer 2020 Distance Learning Course Development Fee- We reviewed the letter sent by the Provost on April 17th (see attached) and concluded that it violated Article 35.6(b) of the contract (the clause that stipulates that all faculty members who develop distance learning courses will be paid a $3,000 development fee). We recently filed a policy grievance on behalf of all members who will be impacted by the application of the terms of this letter. Our assessment is based on the fact that Article 35 does not make any distinction between synchronous and asynchronous modes of distance learning and therefore any courses that are developed or converted from in person to online (synchronous or asynchronous) are subject to 35.6(b). We should note that we recognize that the Covid-19 crisis compelled all courses to be switched to the online modality and that, with the FSU at the bargaining table, agreements on distance learning matters may be reached to modify the terms of these arrangements. Nevertheless, we believe it is important to assert our position on the nature of the contract language as it currently exists and that the administration is required to negotiate any changes to that language.
Student Course Capacities Exceeded Without Proper Approval- The GC looked at a number of examples of student course capacities being raised for Spring 19 after the initial capacities were set (see Article 15.4 of the contract). The GC assessed that there have been violations of 15.4 and filed a policy grievance (i.e. a grievance with more than one potential grievant). A level I hearing occurred and a level I decision was rendered with a ruling against the FSU. The GC voted to engage in settlement talks with Admin on this issue. The FSU GC and the Administration have been engaged in settlement talks and we recently reached a tentative agreement with the Administration. The settlement would:
- Provide monetary compensation of $200 per over enrolled student for 3 individual members cited in the original policy grievance plus 1 additional member who filed the grievance separately (see below).
- Not be precedent setting.
Student Course Capacities Exceeded Without Proper Approval, Individual Grievance- An individual FSU member filed a grievance for their Fall 19 course on the same issue raised above (student course capacities exceeded without their permission). The grievant has agreed to have her grievance incorporated into the policy grievance referenced above and will be part of the settlement reached.
Additional Work Not given to NTT- A Lecturer was not offered additional work per Article 21.3 in Spring 20. A grievance was filed and a level I hearing is being scheduled.
Tenure Track Faculty Member, Allegations Regarding Quality of Scholarship - a faculty member was alleged to have violated the UMB policy on conduct of scholarly research, and the Vice Provost for Research sent it to a committee of inquiry for a formal review (the UMB policy on conduct for scholarly research can be seen here). We have been supporting the faculty member through the formal process, through advising, and through informal discussions with the Administration. The member filed a grievance, got a Level 1 decision, filed for Level 2, got a Level 2 decision. We are waiting for the Administration to comply with the Level 2 decision
Dismissal of NTT With Continuing Appointment- The Administration dismissed the member based on claims of egregious misconduct. The GC has reviewed the case and believes that the Administration did not properly follow the disciplinary procedures outlined in the contract and so we filed a grievance. The UMB Administration asserted that the Provost’s decision regarding dismissal of NTT is not grievable and sought to dismiss the case. We believe we have the right to grieve NTT dismissals up to and including the Provost’s decision. We then filed a level II grievance with the President’s office. A level II decision was rendered upholding UMB Admin’s assertion regarding the grievability of the Provost’s final decision. The FSU Executive Committee, along with our sister chapter at UMA, recommended that the FSU seek informal resolution with the Administration on the broader grievability question (this means that the dismissal of the NTT member in question will be upheld).
OTHER GRIEVANCE AND CONTRACT RELATED ISSUES
NOTE: The Update on grievance issues does not include all 1 on 1 interactions with the Grievance Committee on contract or potential grievance related matters. Below is a selection of the most relevant matters since our last update to members on 6/10/2020.
Possible Inappropriate Usage of AFR Comments- A few members have indicated to the FSU that comments made in their AFR’s are inaccurate and/or seem to be reflective of possible disciplinary intent. We have advised these members that they should add their own comments to the AFR that address any assertions and/or inaccuracies they believe to be in the AFR comments made by the DPC, chair, etc. The GC is following up on these cases to determine if there are any contractual implications of adding such comments to the AFR. Please let the FSU know if you have concerns about inaccurate and/or potentially disciplinary comments being added to your AFR.
Denial of Sabbatical – A member was denied sabbatical on the grounds that there were insufficient funds. Following discussions with the administration, the member will reapply this year.
Tenure Denial- Possible Procedural Violations- A member was denied tenure and believes that there were procedural issues and/or violations in the tenure review process. The GC reviewed the concerns and worked with the member on a possible resolution.
Dismissal of Assistant Professor Sought For Alleged Misconduct- The member was accused of misconduct. The Administration sought to activate the Article 18 dismissal procedures. The FSU and the member worked with the Administration on settlement talks that concluded with a separation agreement that avoided the dismissal procedure.