Common use of Grievability and Arbitrability Clause in Contracts

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. 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 's judgment with respect to instructional need, academic qualifications qualifications, or determinations of excellence or non-excellence whether performance is exceptional and thereby compel the University to make promote or continue an appointment. Nevertheless, the Arbitrator shall have the authority to resolve factual disputes related to Section B.2provide a merit increase. 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 flawedfollowed, 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 '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 MOUAgreement, 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 's remedy shall be limited to an order that the UC redo the performance promotion or merit review process.