Business Professor David Prottas has been Adelphi AAUP’s Vice President of Grievances for the past five years. Since 2015, he has seen a tremendous shift in how grievances are manifested, how they are viewed and how they get resolved.
“There was a period when no formal grievances were filed. Then there was a time there were several going all at once,” David reflects. There was a climate that fluctuated between all and nothing. The vast contrasts could have interchangeably been attributed to the relationship at any given time between the University administration and the Union. Today that relationship by most accounts is a strong and positive one, with interactions on most matters, including conflict resolution, more professional and productive than in years past.
Bringing a conflict to light can be a daunting process for the faculty member. It often sets off feelings of vulnerability, along with concerns about the bureaucracy, time and logistics involved in pursuing resolution. However, if there is one idea David wants every constituent to understand, “Grievance is just one step in a dispute resolution process” and underscores that there are many different paths to resolution and many of them are resolved with relative ease.
It may come as a surprise to learn that “It is still an unusual thing to file a grievance,” explains David. The fact is that about 50% of all disagreements get resolved through discussions without the grievance process. “We are always trying to be constructive,” he points out, emphasizing that “We would always rather negotiate than arbitrate.”
Perhaps what makes the resolution process an increasingly unencumbered one is that it’s not just a reactive function. David’s goal is to proactively reach out to the membership, through the Executive Director and Executive Committee, and by the different units working with leadership. Through all these entities, there is an on-going two-way communication and collection of information about what is happening and what the key issues are. There is a consistent gleaning of new insights that informs each and every conflict and respective resolution to simplify and streamline the process to the extent possible.
So exactly how does the process work? Typically, at its most basic level, it begins with a faculty member bringing to light a complaint on any number of issues. Among the most common, the belief of mistreatment by administration as it may relate to course scheduling, course release time or tenure decisions. Once a complaint is received, David and his committee seek to determine if the complaint being raised is a violation of the contract and could potentially be grievable; or if it is in fact not a violation of the contract. Then the question is, explains David, “Is this complaint, even if not a violation of the contract, a valid complaint that perhaps the administration would be willing to address and resolve?” He goes on to explain, “We can then work with the Deans or Provost, or the like, to address it constructively.” Typically minor disputes get resolved in a month or two.
Then there are things that we think can very well be a violation of the contract. An Adjunct faculty member being told s/he can’t teach a course going forward; a faculty member pulled out of class mid-semester; perhaps a professor isn’t being the paid the right amount for work they are doing. Sometimes the Administration has violated the processes under which the decision was supposed to be made. In these cases administration may be asked to review and reconsider in order to get their attention before a grievance is filed.
Beyond that there are other more complex complaints related to a belief by administration that a faculty member has done something wrong and a punishment has to be determined. In these cases, David explains, “Our job, the Union’s job, is to ask, ‘Do we agree that member has done something wrong and do we believe the consequences are fair and appropriate. Did the University follow the process they are obligated to? Sometimes we feel no, they didn’t. Sometimes we feel the punishment is disproportionate to what the faculty member did or its not permitted under the contract and thus begins the necessary steps to often a more lengthy and involved negotiation process.” Or in extreme cases, a motion to grieve and arbitrate. For example, the standard for job firing is a “Just-Cause" standard, which is subjective. “If we do not agree they had just cause, then we need to look to outside binding arbitration, David clarifies. It’s a last resort tactic due to the time and expense involved, taking as much as 6 - 9 months for resolution. Since the time David began serving the union in this capacity, the only grievance settled through a decision of an arbitrator was a faculty discipline case.
In a category unto itself, and one to which considerable time is dedicated, is tenure-related matters as this decision is a vital one for every tenure track faculty member. One that can be career-defining. For a faculty member who is denied tenure, David urges that they turn to the Union for guidance. “We can certainly look at the process that the University followed in making its decision. If they didn’t follow the process, it can present a reason to grieve and push them to look at it again. Over the course of the years we have negotiated certain processes that protect faculty members from bad decisions being made.” A call out that should serve as a reminder to every tenure candidate: Faculty members have the right to review every report issued during every stage of tenure process, prior to their final submission, to correct any mistake or inaccuracies they see. At various stages we have met with the (FCRTP) Faculty Committee on Reappointment Tenure and Promotion and Unit Peer Review Committees (URPCs). Meeting with those entities and everyone involved in the tenure process to talk about what is required under the contract has led to checks and balances and ultimately positive strides toward a more fair and transparent process.
As the Union moves forward and looks ahead to the future, David’s goals remain steadfast which is for “every member to exercise their right to come to us whenever they feel they are being treated badly or unfairly.” Sometimes that bad and unfair is a grievance; it can often still be worked through even if not a direct violation of the contract. In conclusion, David emphasizes, “While the AAUP activities are most visible to members during those months when the contract is renegotiated every three or five years, the elected officers and representatives are very active protecting and helping the faculty each and every month of every year.“