Common use of Grievability and Arbitrability Clause in Contracts

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 DE.1., or F.6 4of the provisions of section K.7., above. Allegations that the University made a reappointment decision in violation of an NSF Unit 18 faculty’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 NSF Unit 18 faculty. 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 NSF Unit 18 faculty’s performance or qualifications. In those instances where the University’s decision or action was based on NSF Unit 18 faculty’s performance, the arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to review the NSF Unit 18 faculty’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 DE.1., or F.6 4K.7.,., above. Only the Union, and not individual NSF Unit 18 faculty, may submit grievances alleging a violation of Sections DE.1., or F.6 4K.7., above. a. In any grievance involving Section DE.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 DE.1., above. b. When the Union alleges a violation of section DE.1., and the University asserts that its decision comported with DE.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.6 4K.7., 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 Unit 18 faculty who was not reappointed; 2). the department where the NSF Unit 18 faculty has an appointment; 3). the courses taught by the NSF Unit 18 faculty who was replaced; 4). the name of the lower-paid NSF Unit 18 faculty who replaced the higher-paid NSF Unit 18 faculty; and 5). the courses taught by the lower-paid NSF Unit 18 faculty.

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 DE.1D.1., or F.6 4of the provisions of section K.7F.4., above. Allegations that the University made a reappointment decision in violation of an NSF Unit 18 facultyNSF’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 NSF Unit 18 facultyan NSF. An arbitrator reviewing a non-reappointment decision shall not have the authority to substitute their her/his judgment for the University’s judgment with respect to the University’s academic needs or an individual NSF Unit 18 facultyNSF’s performance or qualifications. In those instances where the University’s decision or action was based on NSF Unit 18 facultyan NSF’s performance, the arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to review the NSF Unit 18 facultyNSF’s academic review/personnel files, if any. 4. Special Enforcement Provisions for For Allegations of Continuing status or Appointment Avoidance The following provisions apply to grievances alleging that the University has violated Section DE.1D.1., or F.6 4K.7.,F.4., above. Only the Union, and not individual NSF Unit 18 facultyNSF, may submit grievances alleging a violation of Sections DE.1D.1., or F.6 4K.7F.4., above. a. In any grievance involving Section DE.1D.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 DE.1D.1., above. b. When the Union alleges a violation of section DE.1D.1., and the University asserts that its decision comported with DE.2.aD.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.6 4K.7F.4., the Union must provide the following information within forty-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 Unit 18 faculty who was not reappointed; 2). ) the department where the NSF Unit 18 faculty has an appointment; 3). ) the courses taught by the NSF Unit 18 faculty who was replaced; 4). ) the name of the lower-paid NSF Unit 18 faculty who replaced the higher-paid NSF Unit 18 facultyNSF; and 5). ) the courses taught by the lower-paid NSF Unit 18 facultyNSF.