On or about December 23, 2017 a faculty member in an externally funded program who was on a one year contract was given a notice of non-renewal. On October 26, 2016 the member had submitted a complaint with OGDI alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. OGDI did an investigation and did not find there was discrimination based on sexual orientation, but there was discriminatory treatment; the member was not provided appropriate supervision; the member did not receive the same level of supervision, support or feedback provided to other employees; and that this differential treatment negatively impacted the member's ability to be successful in the position.
On or about February 8, 2017 PSU-AAUP filed a grievance alleging discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Article 13, along with violations of Article 18, Article 24, and Article 27. We processed the grievances in a timely manner and received denials at Step One, Two and Step Three. In the Step Two denial, the Provost indicated that the nonrenewal was justified based on performance problems. The Step Three denial supported the non-renewal for the same reason.
The member's last evaluation was in March 2016 for the period June 2015 to March 2016 where no performance problems were noted. No performance problems were brought to the member's attention prior to the receipt of the non-renewal notice. In one of the grievance responses, it was noted that the supervisor considered non-renewal vs progressive sanctions and chose non-renewal.
This is not the first time that an employee with a letter of appointment with an expiration date was not renewed and later learned that there were alleged performance problems. This happens frequently enough that PSU-AAUP considers it a persistent and harmful practice; one that creates an employment environment for members with a contract with an expiration date that is radically different from that of members who do not have expiration dates on their LOA where their supervisors must follow Article 27 to remediate performance or behavior issues.
PSU-AAUP has long asserted that the CBA applies to all PSU-AAUP members regardless of the length of their LOA. This member, specifically, was robbed of the opportunity to learn from and improve from her alleged performance problems, and that is the antithesis of the progressive discipline process upon which Article 27 is built. She should have been given that feedback long before it was used as a reason for non-renewal.
Pursuant to CBA Article 28 Division C, Section 4 the arbitration is expected to occur within 60 working days from the date of acceptance of the case so we should get a decision, hopefully in agreement with our position, by the end of the year.