It can be a formidable challenge to understand the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), or the contract, between CFA and the CSU administration.

Yet, the contract is an essential document that protects your rights and benefits at work.

Among the many topics addressed by the contract, some of the most important are those that guarantee "due process" protections for faculty. These protections establish ground rules regarding personnel action files, evaluations and sundry university personnel decisions and actions.

To ensure that faculty get a fair hearing when they feel that due process has been violated, the CBA establishes a grievance procedure for the faculty. If the grievance procedure does not resolve the problem, the contract also contains a binding arbitration clause, which allows faculty to challenge before an impartial third party those administration decisions that are arbitrary, capricious or prejudicial.

For this reason, it is critical that you know your rights, and that you come to CFA when problems arise. You must know your rights in order to stand up for them.

The rights for the faculty that are contained in the contract exist only as a result of the arduous process of collective bargaining between CFA and the CSU administration.

Both grievance tracks...

• use the same definition of grievance: "an allegation that the employee was directly wronged in connection with the rights accruing to his or her job classification, benefits, working conditions, appointment, reappointment, tenure, promotion, reassignment, or the like."
• use the same form (included here) for filing purposes
  
• provide for an initial meeting with Administration to seek resolution of the grievance
  
• follow similar timelines
  
• provide access under certain circumstance to final and binding arbitration by a third-party neutral
  
• allow the grievant to select a representative (or none) of their own choosing in the initial stages of the grievance processing
  
• provide for CFA cost-sharing of arbitration expenses in those cases in which it voluntarily agrees to participate. In statutory track cases only (where the Union does not participate), CSU pays the cost of arbitration.
  

• Only the statutory track provides for a Faculty Hearing Committee to review the grievance.
• Arbitration is allowed under the statutory track only in those instances where a positive Faculty Hearing Committee decision is reached, but is subsequently rejected by the campus President.
• Arbitration is allowed under the contractual track only when CFA agrees to arbitrate the grievance.
• Only contractual track grievances are considered precedential in future cases.
  

If (1) you hold a term or "temporary" contract and (2) your grievance qualifies for arbitration under either the statutory track or the contractual track and (3) your grievance involves an alleged violation of Article 12 (primarily involving Lecturer cases), then following the last administrative step of the track you have chosen you will be able to elect the mode of arbitration to be used.

One option is the traditional arbitration process, which typically takes longer to complete but which allows for the fullest exploration and adjudication of the problem at hand. The other option is to use the contract's Umpire system, which will allow for more timely scheduling of a hearing, but which will also limit the amount of time available for both the presentation of your case and the consideration of the arbitrator (Umpire).

• Utilizes a Faculty Hearing Committee composed of full-time faculty to make non-binding recommendations to the campus President.
• Does not automatically guarantee a final and binding decision by a neutral arbitrator; only grievances sustained by the Hearing Committee and denied by the President are eligible for arbitration.
• Is likely to take longer start to finish than the contractual process due to the Hearing Committee step.
• May be utilized from start to finish (arbitration) without CFA involvement.
• May not be used by employees who have worked less than 6 months.
• May not be used for group grievances, "class action" grievances, or grievances wherein CFA is the named grievant.Will not be precedential as to contract interpretations, etc.
• May, as a practical matter, involve claims that range far beyond direct contract violations.

• Allows for arbitration only if CFA agrees to arbitrate (CFA "owns" the arbitration step)
• Must be used for group grievances, "class action" grievances and grievances in which CFA is the grievant.
• May be slightly faster from start to finish than the statutory process.
• Available to all unit members.
• Despite broader grievance definition than previously, will probably continue to focus on contract violations rather than more broadly stated claims.
  

• Restricted to Art. 12 appointment, reappointment, range elevation or work assignment grievances filed by temporary faculty.
• Must be elected following completion of the Faculty Panel/Presidential decision or CO step.
• Must be scheduled within 30 days.
• Requires mutual agreement for a hearing to exceed one day (time divided equally between grievant and CSU).
• No brief, decision within 3 days.
• Non precedential.
  

• Faculty hearing committees provided under the statutory grievance process will represent an "unknown" in the process as it is re-initiated in the new contract after a hiatus of some 25 years. The grievant must decide whether s/he will be better served by this peer review process, which may be followed by arbitration under certain circumstances, or by the contractual grievance process where administrative decisions will be reviewed by a neutral arbitrator upon approval of CFA.
• The Faculty Hearing Committee may recommend—and the President may accept—a negative decision on the grievance, thus barring arbitration.
• The Faculty Hearing Committee may recommend—and the President may accept—a remedy other than that sought by the grievant, thus barring arbitration.
• The Umpire will represent another "unknown" in the process, which has not previously been used by CFA and CSU but which has worked well in other large employment jurisdictions. This process may be a trade-off between speed and thoroughness.
• Promotion, tenure, and reappointment grievances tend to be the most complicated of cases, frequently requiring the production of many documents by the Administration (to make comparative claims, for instance). If such a case is filed under the statutory track, there is relatively little time between initial filing, campus review, and a hearing before a faculty panel. These short timelines may preclude complete production of evidence before the Faculty Hearing takes place. Extensions and continuances can be granted, but solely at the discretion of the Hearing Committee.

A discipline case is an action by the administration against a faculty member for an alleged improper action. It can involve suspension without pay, demotion and/or termination.

The disciplinary action procedure in Article 19 of the CBA has accelerated timelines and unusually strong procedural protections such as a SKELLY HEARING (where you can present your defense to an administrator) as well as the right to have the proposed sanction held in abeyance until the facts are adjudicated by an independent arbitrator.

In DISCIPLINE cases the burden of proof shifts to the University, which must show "just cause" for the suggested sanctions.
Arbitrators have contractual authority to recind or modify proposed sanctions.

Grievances can be adjusted or remedied at any point in the process.

Sometimes, CFA reps and grievants are able to settle cases at the campus before the Level 1 hearing is even held. Sometimes an informal resolution hearing for a faculty status dispute can result in a remedy of retention tenure, or promotion. Sometimes the dean will agree to remove disputed materials from the personnel action file, or the administration will agree to modify a sanction in a discipline case.

More often then not, settlements at the campus level involve a compromise. For instance, negative tenure decisions are sometimes settled at the campus level with the provision of an extra year of probation. Or, an inaccurate document will be taken out of the file and replaced with a new document absent the inaccuracies. In exchange for these remedies, CFA withdraws the grievance. Most settlement remedies are in writing.

As noted above, Level 2 meetings rarely result in a remedy. The greatest number of settlements occurs just prior to arbitration, after CFA has sent information requests and subpoenas. Many promotion denials are remedied with promotion and some back pay. Settlement discussions between CFA representatives and CSU become more serious just prior to arbitration when the opposing advocates discuss the case, the joint exhibits, the witnesses and the issue statements.

The ultimate type of remedy is a decision by an arbitrator. Arbitrators have the ability, for example, to overturn negative RTP decisions, to reinstate lecturers with back pay or to reduce or rescind disciplinary sanctions.

CFA Representation Principles

• CFA will strive to provide the best and most accurate advice possible to CSU faculty considering the filing of a grievance, regardless of job classification, membership status, or personal attributes.
• CFA will carefully consider active participation in all statutory or contract grievances on a case by case basis. CFA will normally participate in contract grievance processing upon request.
• As a matter of practice, CFA may not become part of statutory track grievances at the time of filing, but will, upon request, assist in the initial discussion of such grievances with the Administration at the first step of the process.
• Following the issuance of the first Administrative answer to the grievance, CFA will consider formal participation in the statutory track grievance upon timely, written request of the faculty grievant. If the Union agrees to participate, it will provide assistance and/or representation before the Faculty Hearing Committee as requested by the grievant. Following issuance of the Faculty hearing Committee decision and that of the campus President, CFA will again consider (upon the grievant’s request) participation in a statutory arbitration hearing. CFA will evaluate such requests on a case by case basis but may not elect to participate in all cases.
• Except in extraordinary cases, CFA will not participate in statutory track grievances involving intra-faculty disputes unless the dispute involves the exercise of authority granted by contract or Administrative delegation.
• In cases where a Faculty Hearing Committee rules favorably on a grievance in which 1) CFA has not participated and 2) the campus President has rejected the ruling of the Faculty Hearing Committee, CFA will, upon written request of the grievant, consider or reconsider participation in the arbitration of that dispute. Because of contractual time limit mandates, such a request must be made within 3 days of the Faculty Hearing Committee decision. If the Union agrees to participate in the arbitration process, it will provide assistance and/or representation in arbitration.
• CFA will not bear the cost of providing representation (or associated costs such as expert witnesses, witness travel, transcript, etc.) in cases in which it has not voluntarily agreed to participate.
• In all grievances or arbitrations in which CFA participates, the Union will provide representation of its own choosing. Although in statutory track grievances the grievant is free to select a representative of his or her own choice, CFA will not be responsible for any portion of the costs associated with that choice.
• Should CFA be asked to arbitrate either a statutory track or contract track grievance and declines such representation, the faculty grievant may appeal that decision to CFA's Statewide Representation Committee composed of CSU faculty. Decisions of the Committee shall be final.