GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY a. No Employee shall be denied reappointment or renewal following an unsuccessful major review or continuing review unless:
i. The Employee’s major review or continuing review was conducted in conformity with all provisions of Article XIX., Performance Evaluation;
ii. The Employee was informed of the reason(s) for non-reappointment and given an opportunity to respond;
iii. The academic unit applied standards, procedures, and policies for major review evenhandedly and without discrimination;
iv. The primary emphasis was on the current period of appointment; however, the overall record of the Employee in unit title positions may be considered.
b. Allegations of procedural violations of this Article shall be subject to the full grievance and arbitration provisions of Article X.,
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. 1. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Article, allegations of procedural violations of this Article shall be subject to the full Grievance and Arbitration provisions of this Article. An arbitrator reviewing procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo the procedure.
2. Non-reappointment decisions are not grievable unless the grievance alleges a procedural violation or a violation of the prohibition on Continuing status or Continuing Appointment avoidance in Section A.10 or A.13.a, above. Allegations that the University made a reappointment decision for a discriminatory reason may only be pursued through Article 4 – Non-Discrimination in Employment.
3. An arbitrator reviewing a grievance under this Article shall have no authority to order the University to appoint or reappoint a GA Educator. An arbitrator reviewing a non- reappointment decision shall not have the authority to substitute their judgment for the University’s judgment with respect to the University’s academic needs or an individual GA Educator’s performance or qualifications. In those instances where the University’s decision or action was based on the GA Educator’s performance, the arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to review the GA Educator’s academic review/personnel files, if any.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. 1. Performance review decisions are the result of academic judgment and are not subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of this Agreement. Only allegations of procedural violations of this Article are subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of this Agreement.
2. Allegations of procedural violations of this Article shall be subject to the full grievance and arbitration provisions of this Article. An Arbitrator reviewing procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo the procedure.
3. An Arbitrator shall not have the authority to substitute her/his the Arbitrator's judgment for the University’s judgment with respect to instructional need, academic qualifications or determinations of excellence or non-excellence and thereby compel the University to make or continue an appointment. Nevertheless, the Arbitrator shall have the authority to resolve factual disputes related to Section B.2.
4. The Arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to review the performance review process and the academic review file. If the Arbitrator finds that the performance review process was not followed flawed, or that the decision was not based on materials in the academic review file, and that such flaw/decision had a material adverse impact on the review results, the Arbitrator’s remedy shall be limited to an order that the University re-do the performance review process. Where the arbitrator determines that an individual involved in the academic review has in any way materially violated the Agreement MOU, the Arbitrator may order the University to designate different individuals to conduct the subsequent performance review.
5. Upon the request of either party, the Arbitrator may retain jurisdiction to ensure that the parties have complied with her/his the Arbitrator's award. When the Arbitrator retains jurisdiction, the Arbitrator’s remedy shall be limited to an order that the UC redo the performance review process.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. 1. Allegations of procedural or factual violations of this Article shall be subject to the full grievance and arbitration provisions of this Article.
2. An arbitrator reviewing procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo the procedure.
3. An arbitrator shall not have the authority to substitute her/his judgment for the University’s with respect to instructional need, academic qualifications, or determinations of excellence or non-excellence and thereby compel the University to make or continue an appointment or assign an NSF to a particular course/assignment.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. 1. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Article, allegations of procedural violations of this Article shall be subject to the full Grievance and Arbitration provisions of this Article. An arbitrator reviewing procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo the procedure.
2. Non-reappointment decisions are not grievable unless the grievance alleges a procedural violation or a violation of the prohibition on Continuing status or Continuing Appointment avoidance in Section D.1., or F.4., above. Allegations that the University made a reappointment decision in violation of an NSF’s academic freedom rights or for a discriminatory reason may only be pursued through Article 2 — Academic Freedom or Article 4 — Non- discrimination in Employment, respectively.
3. An arbitrator reviewing a grievance under this Article shall have no authority to order the University to appoint or reappoint an NSF. An arbitrator reviewing a non-reappointment decision shall not have the authority to substitute her/his judgment for the University’s judgment with respect to the University’s academic needs or an individual NSF’s performance or qualifications. In those instances where the University’s decision or action was based on an NSF’s performance, the arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to review the NSF’s academic review/personnel files, if any.
4. Special Enforcement Provisions For Allegations of Continuing status or Appointment Avoidance The following provisions apply to grievances alleging that the University has violated Section D.1., or F.4., above. Only the Union, and not individual NSF, may submit grievances alleging a violation of Sections D.1., or F.4., above.
a. In any grievance involving Section D.1., the Union shall have the burden to provide evidence of a policy or practice that restricts access to Continuing status or Continuing Appointments in violation of Section D.1., above.
b. When the Union alleges a violation of section D.1., and the University asserts that its decision comported with D.2.a., b., and/or c., the arbitrator may consider if the University’s action was only a pretext for Continuing status or Continuing Appointment avoidance.
c. In any grievance involving Section F.4., the Union must provide the following information within forty five (45) calendar days of the date on which the Union knew or should have known a violation occurred:
1) the name of the NSF who was not reappointed;
2) the department where the NSF has a...
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. 1. Performance review decisions are the result of academic judgment and are not subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of this Agreement. Only allegations of procedural violations of this Article are subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of this Agreement.
2. Allegations of procedural violations of this Article shall be subject to the full grievance and arbitration provisions of this Article. An Arbitrator reviewing procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo the procedure.
3. An Arbitrator shall not have the authority to substitute the Arbitrator’s judgment for the University’s judgment with respect to instructional need, academic qualifications or determinations of excellence or non-excellence and thereby compel the University to make or continue an appointment. Nevertheless, the Arbitrator shall have the authority to resolve factual disputes.
4. The Arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to review the performance review process and the academic review file. If the Arbitrator finds that the performance review process was not followed, or that the decision was not based on materials in the review file, and that such flaw/decision had a material adverse impact on the review results, the Arbitrator’s remedy shall be limited to an order that the University re-do the performance review process. Where the arbitrator determines that an individual involved in the academic review has in any way materially violated the Agreement, the Arbitrator may order the University to designate different individuals to conduct the subsequent performance review.
5. Upon the request of either party, the Arbitrator may retain jurisdiction to ensure that the parties have complied with the Arbitrator’s award. When the Arbitrator retains jurisdiction, the Arbitrator’s remedy shall be limited to an order that the UC redo the performance review process.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. Oral reprimands and written warnings, unless used as a basis for subsequent disciplinary time off without pay or discharge, are not subject to the Arbitration article of this Agreement. Disciplinary action or discharge, which is subject to the Grievance Procedure, may be processed at Step 2 of the procedure (See Article 21: Grievance Procedure.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. Academic judgment is not subject to grievance or arbitral review. Any complaint arising out of this Article or any grievance filed alleging violation of this Article may be processed either through the Grievance Procedure Article 24/Arbitration Article 25 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure Article 26, not both.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. 1. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Article, allegations of procedural violations of this Article shall be subject to the full Grievance and Arbitration provisions of this Article. An arbitrator reviewing procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo the procedure.
2. Non-reappointment decisions are not grievable unless the grievance alleges a procedural violation or a violation of the prohibition on Continuing status or Continuing Appointment avoidance in Section D.1., or F.4., above. Allegations that the University made a reappointment decision in violation of an NSF’s academic freedom rights or for a discriminatory reason may only be pursued through Article 2 — Academic Freedom or Article 4 — Non-discrimination in Employment, respectively.
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY. 1. Allegations of procedural or factual violations of this Article shall be subject to the full grievance and arbitration provisions of this Article.
2. An arbitrator reviewing procedural violations shall have the authority to order the University to redo the procedure.
3. An arbitrator shall not have the authority to substitute her/his the arbitrator’s judgment for the University's with respect to instructional need, academic qualifications, or determinations of excellence or non-excellence and thereby compel the University to make or continue an appointment or assign an NSFa Unit 18 faculty member to a particular course/assignment.
