A STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF GRIEVANCE HANDLING MECHANISM

SUMMER PROJECT REPORT Submitted by R.GAYATHRI REGISTER NO: 27348310 Under the guidance of Mrs.R.HEMALATHA, MBA
Faculty, Department Of Management Studies

in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of

MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

SRI MANAKULA VINAYAGAR ENGINNERING COLLEGE PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY PUDUCHERRY, INDIA

SEPTEMBER 2007

SRI MANAKULA VINAYAGAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE MADAGADIPET, PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the project work entitled A STUDY ON EFFECTIVENES OF GRIEVANCE HANDLING MECHANISM is a bonafide work done by R.GAYATHRI [REGISTER NO: 27348310] in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of Master of Business Administration by Pondicherry University during the academic year 2007-2008.

GUIDE

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Submitted for Viva-voce Examination held on

________________________

External Examiner 1. 2.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It gives us great ecstasy of pleasure to convey our deep and sincere thanks to our Principal Dr. V.S.K. Venkatachalapathy, for his kind support, which helped us to complete the project successfully. We have great pleasure in expressing our sincere gratitude and hearty thanks to our beloved Faculty, Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Department of Management Studies for consenting to be our guide. She had been a great source of encouragement and inspired us throughout our project. We are greatly thankful to her for everything she has done for us. We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Mr.Jayakumar, Head of the Department, Department of Management studies for giving constant encouragement We express our hearty thanks to Mr.D.Umamaheswaran, Senior Personnel Officer, Lucas TVS Ltd., who provided valuable guidance throughout the project in his busy schedule. We thank our Management, Department Staffs, and Our Parents for their support and above all to God for showering his blessing upon us. A special word of thanks to all those we have failed to acknowledge.

ABSTRACT
This study focuses on Effectiveness of Grievance Handling Mechanism at Lucas-TVS Limited,Puducherry. Grievance is any kind of dissatisfaction with regard to pay,promotion,suspension,working condition etc.. The objective of the study is to find the effectiveness of grievance handling mechanism being followed. The sample size is 35 and the population size is 140. The tools used for the study are Percentage method and Correlation. The study infers that most of employees are highly satisfied with the mechanism being followed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES LIST OF CHARTS i ii

CHAPTER I

TITLE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Profile of the organization 1.2 Introduction to the study REVIEW OF LITERATURE OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 6.1 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 6.2SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

PAGE NO. 1 5 6 12 13 17 35 37 38

II III IV V VI VII VIII

39

APPENDICES
ANNEXURE I

40 41

ANNEXURE II

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. 1.1 Table name List of products manufactured Page No: 2

1.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18

Clients Distribution of respondents regarding temporary relief Distribution of respondents based on age Distribution of respondents towards supervisors level of skill Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees Distribution of respondents towards decision given Distribution of respondents towards the informal channel Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance Distribution of respondents based on qualification Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of various committees Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors authority Correlation between Feel about decision and Real basis identified. Values for correlation Correlation between Discussion and Conference And Supervisors Skill level Values for correlation

3 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 31 32 33 33 34 34

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart No: 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14

Chart Name Distribution of respondents regarding temporary relief Distribution of respondents based on age Distribution of respondents towards supervisors level of skill Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees Distribution of respondents towards decision given Distribution of respondents towards the informal channel Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance Distribution of respondents based on qualification Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of various committees Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors authority

Page No: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 30 31 32

CHAPTER I
1.1 PROFILE OF THE COMPANY

Lucas - TVS was set up in 1961 as a joint venture of Lucas Industries plc., UK and T V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (TVS), India, to manufacture Automotive Electrical Systems. One of the top ten automotive component suppliers in the world, Lucas Varity was formed by the merger of the Lucas Industries of the UK and the Varity Corporation of the US in September 1996. The company designs, manufactures and supplies advanced technology systems, products and services to the world's automotive, after market, diesel engine and aerospace industries. The combination of these two well-known groups has resulted in the establishment of a vibrant company, which has had a successful track record of sustained growth over the last three decades.TVS is one of India's twenty large industrial houses with twenty-five manufacturing companies and a turnover in excess of US$ 1.3 billion. The turnover of Lucas-TVS and its divisions is US$ 233 million during 2003-2004. Incorporating the strengths of Lucas UK and the TVS Group, Lucas TVS has emerged as one of the foremost leaders in the automotive industry today. Lucas TVS reaches out to all segments of the automotive industry such as passenger cars, commercial vehicles, tractors, jeeps, two-wheelers and off-highway vehicles as well as for stationary and marine applications. With the automobile industry in India currently undergoing phenomenal changes, Lucas-TVS, with its excellent facilities, is fully equipped to meet the challenges of tomorrow. PRODUCTS Lucas-TVS manufactures the most comprehensive range of auto electrical components in the country. A range which continues to set standards in the industry. The products are designed to meet the demands of vehicle manufacturers both in India and worldwide. With the emission standards in India becoming increasingly stringent, Lucas-TVS has ensured that each of its products is manufactured to meet global standards

LIST OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED

Lucas-TVS Product Range for Indian Market Starter Motor Alternator Headlamp

Lucas-TVS Product Range for US/European Market Starter Motor Alternator Small Motor 14W Wiper Motor WindShield Wiper Motor (GM Range) LRW Products Dynamo Regulator

Small Motor Wiper Motor Blower Motor Fan Motor Dynamo Regulator Dynamo Ignition Coil Distributor Diesel fuel injection

Dynamo Auto Electricals

CLIENTS INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATOR Cars Suzuki, Japan Isuzu, Japan. Mitsubishi, Japan

CUSTOMER Maruti Udyog Hindustan Motors

TATA Engineering and Locomotive Company General Motors, India Ford India Daewoo Motors Co., India Ind Auto Hyundai Motors, India Mahindra & Mahindra General Motors, USA Ford, UK Daewoo, Korea Fiat, Italy Hyundai Motors, Korea Tractors International Harvestor Corporation, UK Tractors and Farm Equipments (TAFE) Escorts HMT Eicher Tractors Punjab Tractors Gujarat Tractors L&T Tractors Greaves Tractors Massey Ferguson, UK Ursus, Poland. Ford, UK Zetor, Czechoslovakia Good Earth, Germany Zetor, Czechoslovakia Johndeer, USA Same, Italy

DIVISIONS Lucas TVS has grown hand in hand with the automobile industry in the country. The company's policies have recognised the need to respond effectively to changing customer needs, helping to propel it to a position of leadership. The company has raised its standards on quality, productivity, reliability and flexibility by channeling its interests. At present, there are five divisions: 1. Auto Electricals L-TVS 2. Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE) - DTVS 3. Electronic Ignition Systems (INEL) 4. Automotive Lighting (IJL)

5. After Market Operations (LIS)

ACHIEVEMENTS Lucas-TVS, a TVS group company, has bagged the prestigious Deming Application Award for the year 2004. This was announced by the Deming Prize Committee of Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers (JUSE).

1.2 INTRODUCTION FOR THE STUDY 1. The aim of the study is to find whether the grievance handling mechanism ensures that employees problems are recognized and appropriately reviewed in a prompt and timely manner. 2. The grievance mechanism acts as a foundation for a harmonious and healthy relationship between employee and employer.

3. The grievance mechanism ensures a fair and just treatment of employees concerns and prompt resolution of grievances without discrimination, coercion, restraint or reprisal against any employee who may submit or be involved in a grievance.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE GRIEVANCE Grievance is any discontent or dissatisfaction that affects organizational performance. As such it can be stated or unvoiced, written or oral, legitimate or ridiculous. If the dissatisfaction of employees goes unattended or the conditions causing it are not corrected, the irritation is likely to increase and lead to unfavorable attitude towards the management and unhealthy relations in the organization.

The formal mechanism for dealing with such workers dissatisfaction is called grievance procedure. All companies whether unionized or not should have established and known grievance methods of processing grievances. The primary value of grievance procedure is that it can assist in minimizing discontent and dissatisfaction that may have adverse effects upon co-operation and productivity. A grievance procedure is necessary in large organization which has numerous personnel and many levels with the result that the manager is unable to keep a check on each individual, or be involved in every aspect of working of the small organization. The usual steps in grievance procedure are 1. Conference among the aggrieved employee, the supervisor, and the union steward. 2. Conference between middle management and middle union leadership. 3. Conference between top management and top union leadership. 4. Arbitration. There may be variations in the procedures followed for resolving employee grievances. Variations may result from such factors as organizational or decision-making structures or size of the plant or company. Large organizations do tend to have formal grievance procedures involving succession of steps.

Arbitration
Arbitration is a procedure in which a neutral third party studies the bargaining situation, listens to both the parties and gathers information, and then makes recommendations that are binding on the parties. Arbitration has achieved a certain degree of success in resolving disputes between the labour and the management. The labour union generally takes initiative to go for arbitration. When the union so decides, it notifies the management. At this point, the union and company must select an arbitrator.

Guidelines
When processing grievances, there are several important guidelines to consider:

Check the grievants title and employment status to determine if he / she are included in a union eligible classification. Note the supervisors respondent obligation under the grievance procedure. Review the requested solution to the grievance. Determine if the relief sought is beyond a supervisors authority to grant. Review all policies or other information related to the grievance. Conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations. Prepare a written response including the reason for the decision and provide a copy to the grievant. Grievance materials should be maintained in a separate file from either personnel files or records.

Articles related to grievance Measures of supervisory behaviors and supervisors knowledge of the collective agreement should, intuitively, be related to the occurrence of grievable events, but there has been no theory advanced to explain grievable events. Kliener , Nigkelsburg and Pilarski implicitly assumed that supervisor monitoring of employees will increase the number of grievable events, but a theoretical basis or rationale for this assumed relationship is not discussed. Grievants were less satisfied with their jobs, had poorer attitudes toward their line supervisors, had greater feelings of pay inequity, had stronger beliefs that workers should

participate in decision-making, were less satisfied with their unions, and more active in their unions. The lower satisfaction with the union among grievant may be due to dissatisfaction with the processing of grievances. Grievants were more younger and had less education than nongrievants. Gordon and Miller, Allen and Keavney and Klass note the important role that expectancy theory could play in differentiating grievants and nongrievants. Although not a complete test of expectancy theory, Lewin and Boroff did include the employees perceived effectiveness of the grievance procedure as an explanatory variable. Surprisingly, this was not significantly related to grievance filing. Further research focusing on expectancy theory and grievance filing that more fully develops testable hypotheses derived from expectancy theory seems appropriate. Bemmels, Reshef and Stratton-Devine included the shop stewards assessment of how frequently employees approach them with complaints. Although most grievances are formally filed by employees, the initiation of a grievance can come from employees or stewards. Complaining to the shop stewards is the employees role in the grievance initiation process. Both of these studies found the work group with employees who complained to the stewards more frequently had grievance rates. Employees complaining to their stewards is a precursor to grievance filing. The measure of consideration and structure were significantly related to frequency of employee complaints in Bemmels and the stewards assessment of the supervisors knowledge of the collective agreement was negatively related to complaints. Lewin and Peterson found a positive relationship with grievance procedure structure and grievance rates. They also found higher grievance rates under procedures that include provisions for expedited grievance handling. It was found that provisions allowing oral presentation of grievances was related to lower rates of written grievances, and screening of potential grievances was related to lower rates of written grievance, and screening of potential grievances by a committee or other union officials was associated with lower grievance rates. The number of steps in the grievance procedure and the length of time allowed for filing a grievance were not related to grievance rates.

Lewin and Peterson argued that evaluations of grievance procedure effectiveness should include subjective evaluations by the participants as well as objective measures reflecting the operation of the grievance procedure. They argued that subjective evaluations are the preferred method for evaluating grievance procedure effectiveness. Effectiveness was difficult to interpret from measures reflecting the operation of grievance procedures such as grievance rates, settlement levels and arbitration rates since it was not clear what the optimal magnitudes might be for these measures. Furthermore the purpose of grievance procedure is to resolve disputes about the interpretation and application of collective agreements. Grievance procedures exist for the benefit of the employees, employers and unions. If the parties were satisfied with the operation of the grievance procedure, it seems to more important than attaining some predetermined optimal magnitude of grievance filing or when, where, and how grievances are being resolved. Grievance procedures are related to other attitudinal measures and the behaviors of shop stewards in the grievance procedure. Grievance procedure effectiveness was related to union members overall satisfaction with the union. Grievance procedures have been found to relate to union commitment, employer commitment and dual commitment. Employer commitment has found to be negatively related to absenteeism and turnover and union commitment has found to have a positive relationship with union participation and with shop steward behavior in the grievance procedure. Many studies still report empirical analysis with no theoretical grounding, or only intuitive and ad hoc hypotheses. Grievance could be classified into 4 basic types: Discrimination charges, rules violation, general or unclassified complaints and discipline. Discrimination was spelled out as based upon race, sex, religion, color, national origin, age, veteran status, or handicapped. Grievance corresponding rules violation was an employees interpretation of application of policies and procedures governing personnel policies, department work rules, unsafe or unhealthy working conditions, or other policies or procedures of a working nature.

Disciplinary actions are the category least classified as a grievance. Legalistic approach was used to handle such cases. With the possibility of adverse legal action arising from unjust discipline, separate systems are often established in discipline cases to ensure the employees complete due process rights. Five types of grievance systems were typically noted in the literature. They were the open door policy, step-review method, peer-review also called the grievance committee or roundtable, ombudsman and hearing officer. In the public sector study. The predominant method of grievance adjudication was the step-review method used either singularly or in combination with a peerreview committee. The step-review method had characteristics similar to the grievance / arbitration procedures found in union contracts. The step-review method has a preestablished set of steps for reviewing employee complaints by succeeding higher levels of agency personnel.

Benefits of having Grievance procedure: The grievance procedure provides a means for identifying practices, procedures, and administrative policies that are causing employee complaints so that changes can be considered. They reduce costly employment suits. A grievance procedure allows managers to establish a uniform labour policy.

A grievance system can be a reliable mechanism to learn of, and resolve employee dissatisfaction. It can produce early settlements to disputes or provide for correction of contested employment issues.

CHAPTER III OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE To study the effectiveness of grievance handling mechanism. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE 1. To identify whether the employees are aware of the grievance handling mechanism.

2. To identify whether the grievance handling system leads to a favorable attitude towards the management 3. To identify that the grievance handling system leads to a mutual understanding between workers and the management 4. To know the level of satisfaction towards the grievance handling procedure of the organization 5. To identify the factors influencing the effectiveness of the grievance handling in the organization

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY RESEARCH

Research is a process in which the researcher wishes to find out the end result for a given problem and thus the solution helps in future course of action. The research has been defined as A careful investigation or enquiry especially through search for new fact in any branch of knowledge.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The procedure using, which researchers go about their work of describing, explaining and predicting phenomena, is called Methodology. Methods compromise the procedures used for generating, collecting, and evaluating data. Methods are the ways of obtaining information useful for assessing explanation.

TYPES OF RESEARCH
The type of research used in this project is descriptive in nature. Descriptive research is essentially a fact finding related largely to the present, abstracting generations by cross sectional study of the current situation .The descriptive methods are extensively used in the physical and natural science, for instance when physics measures, biology classifies, zoology dissects and geology studies the rock. But its use in social science is more common, as in socio economic surveys and job and activity analysis.

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH AIMS

To portray the characteristics of a particular individual situation or group(with or without specific initial hypothesis about the nature of this characteristics). To determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is associated with something else( usually , but not always ,with a specific initial hypothesis). The descriptive method has certain limitation; one is that the research may make description itself an end itself. Research is essentially creative and demands the discovery of facts on order to lead a solution of the problem. A second limitation is associated whether the statistical techniques dominate. The desire to over emphasis central tendencies and to fact in terms of Average, Correlation, Means and dispersion may not always be either welcome. This limitation arises because statistics which is partly a descriptive tool of analysis can aid but not always explain causal relation.

DESIGN OF DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES:

Descriptive studies aim at portraying accurately the characteristics of a particular group or solution. One may under take a descriptive study about the work in the factory, health and

welfare. A descriptive study may be concerned with the right to strike, capital punishment, prohibition etc: A descriptive study involves the following steps: 1. Formulating the objectives of the study. 2. Defining the population and selecting the sample. 3. Designing the method of data collection. 4. Analysis of the data. 5. Conclusion and recommendation for further improvement in the practices.

Description of statistical tools used

Percentage method Correlation

Percentage method
In this project percentage method test and used. The following are the formula Percentage of Respondent = No. of Respondent Total no. of Respondent CORRELATION Correlation analysis deals with the association between two or more variables. It does not tell anything about cause and effect relationship. Correlation is describd or classified in several different ways. Three of the most important ways of classifying correlation are : 1. Positive and Negative 2. Simple, Multiple and Partial 3. Linear and Non-Linear x 100

Karl Pearsons method is popularly known as Pearsons coefficient of correlation. It is denoted by the symbol r. xy Formula for Karl Pearsons coefficient r = ______________ x2 * y2 The value of the coefficient of correlation as obtained by the above formula shall always lie between +1 and -1. When r = 1, it means there is perfect positive correlation between variables. When r = -1, it means there is perfect negative correlation between variables. When r = 0, it means no relationship between variables.

Data collection method

Data was collected using Questionnaire. This method is quite popular in case of big enquires. Private individuals, research workers, private and public organizations and even government are adopting it. A questionnaire consists of a number of question involves both specific and general question related to Grievance Handling.

Sources of data
The two sources of data collection are namely primary & secondary.

Primary Data:
Primary data are fresh data collected through survey from the employees using questionnaire.

Secondary Data
Secondary data are collected from books and internet.

Research design
Research design is the specification of the method and procedure for acquiring the information needed to solve the problem.

The research design followed for this research study is descriptive research design where we find a solution to an existing problem. The problem of this study is to find the effectiveness of Grievance Handling at Lucas- TVS Limited.

Sample Design
Sample Element Sample Size Sample Test Sample Media Sampling Method : Employees at Lucas- TVS Limited. : 35 samples : Percentage Method & Correlation : Questionnaire : Simple Random Sampling

CHAPTER V DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Distribution of respondents regarding Temporary relief Table: 5.1 Sl. No. Temporary No. of Percentage relief respondents

1 2 Total Inference:

Yes No 35

19 16 100

54.3 45.7

From the above table it is inferred that 54.3% of respondents state that they are being provided with temporary relief and 45.7% stating they are not being provided relief. Distribution of respondents regarding Temporary relief Chart No: 5.1

temporary relief
60

50

40

30

20

Percent

10

0 yes no

temporary relief

Distribution of respondents based on age Table: 5.2

Sl.No. 1

Age 19-25

Frequency 6

Percentage 17.1

2 Total Inference:

26-30 35

29 100

82.9

From the above table it is inferred that 17.1% of respondents are between the age group 19-25 and 82.9% are between the age group 26-30. Distribution of respondents based on age Chart No: 5.2

age
19-25

26-30

Distribution of respondents towards supervisors level of skill Table: 5.3

Sl.No.

Supervisor possess necessary Frequency Percentage skill very highly skilled moderately skilled Total 32 3 35 91.4 8.6 100

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 91.4% of respondents state that their supervisor are

1 2

highly skilled and 8.6% state that their supervisor is moderately skilled. Distribution of respondents towards supervisors level of skill Chart No: 5.3
supervisor has skill
100

80

60

40

20

Percent

0 very highly skilled moderately skilled

supervisor has skill

Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees Table: 5.4

Sl.No

Awareness Frequency Percentag of e committees yes 35 100.0

Total Inference:

35

100

From the above table it is inferred that 100% of respondents are aware of the various committees that are framed for redressing their grievance. Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees Chart No: 5.4

various committee
120

100

80

60

40

Percent

20

0 yes

various committee

Distribution of respondents towards decision given Table: 5.5 Sl.No. Decision Frequency given is satisfactory or not Highly satisfactory 31 Percentage

88.6

Moderately satisfactory Total

4 35

11.4 100

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 88.6% of respondents are highly satisfied towards the decision given by the management and 11.4% of respondents are moderately satisfied towards the decision. Distribution of respondents towards decision given
Chart No: 5.5

feel about decision given

100

80

60

40

20

Percent

0 highly satisfactory moderately satisfact

feel about decision given

Distribution of respondents towards the informal channel Table: 5.6 Sl.No 1 Informal No. of respondents Percentage channel co worker 23 65.7

2 Total

peer 35

12 100

34.3

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 65.7% of respondents communicate to their coworkers and 34.3% of respondents communicate to their peer. Distribution of respondents towards the informal channel
Chart No: 5.6

informal channel
70 60 50 40 30 20

Percent

10 0 co w orker peer

informal channel

Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance Table: 5.7
Sl.No. 1 2 Real basis Frequency Percentage strongly agree agree 27 8 77.1 22.9

Total

35

100

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 77.1% of respondents strongly agree that real basis is identified and 22.9% of respondents agree that real basis is identified. Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance Chart No: 5.7

real basis identified

agree

strongly agree

Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not Table: 5.8

Sl.No.

Mechanism No. of Percentage resolves respondents grievance or not yes 34 97.1

2 Total Inference:

no 35

1 100

2.9

From the above table it is inferred that 97.1% of respondents agree that mechanism resolves grievance and 2.9% of respondents disagree that mechanism does not resolve grievance. Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not Chart No: 5.8
mechanism resolves grievance
no

yes

Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference

Table: 5.9

Sl.No.
1 2

Discussion and No. of Percentage conference respondents

strongly agree agree 29 6 82.9 17.1

Total Inference:

35

100

From the above table it is inferred that 82.9% of respondents strongly agree that discussion and conference is facilitated and 17.1% of respondents agree that discussion and conference is facilitated.
Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference

Chart No: 5.9

discussion and conference

100

80

60

40

20

Percent

0 strongly agree agree

discussion and conference

Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance TABLE NO: 5.10 Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 Whom do Frequency Percentage you redress office 4 11.4 bearers committee 16 45.7 members 3 8.6 hr 2 5.7

mangers 5 union members 6 counselor 7 friends 8 co workers Total 35 100 1 2.9 1 2.9 1 2.9 7 20.0

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 11.4% of respondents communicate grievances through office bearers, 45.7% through committee members, 8.6% through HR, 5.7 through managers, 20% through union members, 2.9 through counselor, 2.9 through friends and 2.9 through co workers.

Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance Chart No: 5.10

to whom to redress
co w orkers friends counsellor offiece bearers

union members

mangers committee members hr

Distribution of respondents based on qualification Table: 5.11

Sl.No. 1 2 3 Total

Qualification Frequency Percentage higher secondary diploma under graduate 35 31 1 3 100 88.6 2.9 8.6

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 88.6% of respondents are qualified up to higher secondary, 2.9% of respondents are diploma and 8.6% are under graduate. Distribution of respondents based on qualification Chart No: 5.11

qualification
under graduate diploma

higher secondary

Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of various committees Table: 5.12

Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Various committees Frequency Percentage canteen,sga 1 2.9 Sga,tei, transport transport,welf are,sga transport, safety, canteen safety,transpo rt,sga canteen,tei,sa fety,transport tei,sga,cantee n,transport transport, welfare, safety tei,sga,transp ort,welfare Total 4 6 4 4 3 9 2 2 35 11.4 17.1 11.4 11.4 8.6 25.7 5.7 5.7 100

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 2.9% of respondents are aware of canteen-sga committee,11.4% of respondents are aware of sga-tei-transport committee,17.1% of respondents are aware of transport-welfare-sga,11.4% t of respondents are aware transport, safety, canteen , 11.4% of respondents are aware safety,transport,sga ,8.6% of respondents are aware of canteen,tei,safety,transport,25.7% of respondents are aware tei,sga,canteen,transport,5.7% of respondents are aware transport, welfare, safety and 5.7% of respondents are aware of tei,sga,transport,welfare.

Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of various committees Chart No: 5.12

available comit
tei,sga,transport,w e transport,w elfare, s canteen,sga sga,tei, transport

tei,sga,canteen,tran

transport,w elfare,sg

transport,safety, ca canteen,tei,safety,t safety,transport,sga

Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up Table: 5.13

Sl.No. 1 Total

Regular follow-up Yes 35

No. of respondents 35 100

Percentage 100.0

Inference: From the above table it is inferred that 100% of respondents have agreed that there is regular follow up to ensure right decision is given. Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up Chart No: 5.13

regular follow up
120

100

80

60

40

Percent

20

0 yes

regular follow up

Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors authority Table: 5.14 Sl.No Supervisor has given No. of Percentage

authority Valid Has given authority Total Inference: 35

respondents 35 100 100.0

From the above table it is inferred that 100% of respondents have agreed that supervisor is given authority. Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors authority Chart No: 5.14

supervisor given authority

120

100

80

60

40

Percent

20

0 has given authority

supervisor given authority

ANALYSIS USING CORRELATION To know whether there is correlation between feel about decision given and real basis identification Let X be Feel about decision given Let Y be Real basis identification

Table: 5.15

real basis identified

Total

Strongly agree Feel about highly decision satisfactory given 25

agree 6 31

Table: 5.16 Values for correlation xy 256.5

x2 180.5
Total

moderately 2 y satisfactory 364.5

2 27

2 8

4 35

r =

xy ______________ (x2 * y2 )

Substituting the values of x2, y2, xy in the above equation we get. r=1 Inference: Since the value of r is equal to one the variables are positively correlated. A variation in one variable will cause variation in another ANALYSIS USING CORRELATION To know whether there is correlation between discussion and conference and supervisor has skill Let X be Discussion and conference. Let Y be Supervisor has skill. Table: 5.17
Total supervisor has skill moderately skilled very highly skilled discussion and strongly 28 1 29

conference

agree agree 4 32 2 3 6 35

Total

Table: 5.18 Values for correlation x2 420.5 xy ______________ (x2 * y2 ) Substituting the values of x2, y2, xy in the above equation we get. r=1 Inference: Since the value of r is equal to one the variables are positively correlated. A variation in one variable will cause variation in another. y2 264.5 xy 333.5

r =

CHAPTER VI 6.1 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 1. 54.3% of respondents state that they are being provided with temporary relief until final decision is taken. 2. 82.9% of the respondents are between the age group 26-30.

3. 91.4% of respondents state that their supervisors are highly skilled that is the supervisors possess necessary human relation skills. 4. 100% of respondents are aware of the various committees that are framed for redressing their grievance. 5. 88.6% of respondents are highly satisfied towards the decision given by the management. 6. 65.7% of respondents communicate to their co-workers. It is their informal channel. 7. 77.1% of respondents strongly agree that real basis of there is identified. 8. 97.1% of respondents agree that mechanism being followed resolves their grievance. 9. 82.9% of respondents strongly agree that discussion and conference is facilitated rather than executive authority. 10. 45.7% of respondents immediately redress their grievance through committee members. 11. 88.6% of respondents are qualified up to higher secondary. 12. 25.7% of respondents are aware of tei, sga, canteen, transport committees available. 13. 100% of respondents have agreed that there is regular follow up to ensure right decision is given. 14. 100% of respondents have agreed that supervisor is given authority to take action necessary to resolve the problem. 15. When there is deviation in the real basis identification it will be reflected in the level of satisfaction regarding decision given.

6.2 SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Job descriptions, responsibilities should be as clear as possible. Everyone should be informed of companys goals and expectation including what is expected from each individual. 2. Informal counseling helps to address and manage grievances in the workplace.

3. Conflict management in the organization will be helpful to reduce the number of grievance rates. 4. Open door policy can be used. The barriers that exist between the various categories are to some extent broken by personal contact and mutual understanding. 5. Suggestion boxes can be installed. This brings the problem or conflict of interest to light. 6. Accident rates, Requests for transfers, Resignations, and disciplinary cases should be analyzed since they reveal the general patterns that are not apparent. 7. Temporary relief can be provided so that the delay does not increase his frustration and anxiety and thereby not affecting his / her morale and productivity.

CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION The study reveals that the Grievance handling mechanism is satisfactory. The organization is recognizing the importance of satisfying the employees and retaining them. Further improvements can be made so that all members are highly satisfied with the procedure. The suggestions and recommendations when implemented will still more benefit the organization.

CHAPTER VIII
Limitations of the study The sample size was restricted to 100

Personal interview was not allowed.

Scope for the study

The project throws light on need for Grievance handling mechanism and this study facilitates the management for further improvement on the same. This study will be useful when similar kind of research is undertaken.

ANNEXURE I BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aswathappa, K., Human resource and Personnel management, TATA McGraw- HILL. 2. Arun monappa and Saiyadain, Mirza S., Personnel management, TATA McGraw- HILL.

3. Flippo, Edwin B., Personnel management, McGRAW-HILL International Publications.

WEB SITE 1. www.citehr.com 2. www.findatricles.com

ANNEXURE II QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Name: 2. Gender:

i.Male

] ]

ii.Female[ 3. Age: i.19-25 ii.26-30

[ [

] ] ]

iii.31 and above[ 4. Edicational qualification:

i.Higher secondary[ ii.Diploma iv.Post graduate 5. Marital status: i.Married [ ] ] ii.Unmarried[ [ [ iii.Under graduate [

] ] ] ]

6. Are you aware of the various committees that redress the grievance? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

7. If yes for above question kindly list out the various committees available

8. Are you aware of the members of the various committees? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

9. Are you aware of the weekly/monthly meetings of the various committees which are being held? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

10. .In case the grievance has to be immediately redressed to whom do you communicate?

11. Is there any informal channel to redress your grievance such as i.Co-worker[ ii.Peer[ ] ) ]

iii.If others,please specify( 12. Is the real basis of your problem identified? iStrongly agree[ ii.Agree[ ] ] ] iii.Disagree[ ]

iv.Strongly disagree[

13. Does your higher authority listen when your grievance is presented? i.Listens patiently[ ii.Shouts at you[ ] ] ]

iii.Does not listen at all[

14. Is imporatance given to what is right rather than who is right?

i.Yes[ ii.No[

] ]

15. Are you constantly informed on what is being done about your grievance? i.Very often being informed[ ii.Seldom being informed iii.Does not inform at all [ [ ] ] ]

16. Is an atmosphere of cordiality and co-operation facilitated through mutual discussion and conference? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

17. Is there a positive and friendly approach during grievance handling? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

18. Do you feel that discussion and conference is given more importance rather than executive authority? i. Strongly agree[ ii. Agree[ ] ] ] iii. Disagree[ ]

iv. Strongly disagree[

19. Is there a spirit of give and take and sharing and working together? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

20. Has the mechanism being followed resolves you grievance? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

21. How do you feel about the decision given corresponding to your grievance? Is it i.Highly satisfactory[ iii.No satisfaction[ ] ] ] ii.Moderately satisfactory[

22. Is there regular follow up to ensure that the right decision has ended up in satiafaction? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

23. Is there any temporary relief provided until proper decision is made so that it does not raise any adverse effects within the organization? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

24. Do the various committee members actively engage in resolving your problem? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

25. If the decision is not satisfactory are you given opportunity to take it to hjgher officials? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

26. Do you feel open to share your grievances? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

27. Do you feel that the supervisor possesses necessary human relation skills in terms of understanding your problem? i.Very highly skilled[ ii.Moderately skilled[ iii.Not skilled[ ] ] ]

28. Are the matters relevant to the grievance kept confidential? i.highly confidential[ ii.Not kept confidential[ ] ]

29. Are the procedures for conveying grievance simple and easy to utilize? i.Very simple[ ] ] ii.Difficult to utilize[

30. Is the supervisor given authority to take action necessary to resolve the problem? i.Has given authority[ ] ] ii.Does not have authority[

31. Are proper records maintained on each grievance? i.Yes[ ii.No[ ] ]

IMPROVING THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS: GRIEVANCE MEDIATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ARBITRATION Mark C. Travis, J.D., LL.M. Director, Tennessee Labor-Management Center 1313 Old Fort Parkway, Suite 300 Murfreesboro, TN 37129 (615) 895-4166

mtravis@tnlmc.org. I. EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GRIEVANCEARBITRATION PROCEDURE. A. Common Sources of Grievances. Labor-management professionals are often frustrated with the effectiveness of their grievance and arbitration procedure. The same types of grievances continue to arise and the outcome of the final grievance step is often the same. Colleagues are often dissatisfied with the result, or the lack of one, and many issues get swept under the rug out of a fear of going to arbitration, only to resurface in the future. Of course, grievance and arbitration procedures in collective bargaining agreements are the quid pro quo for no-strike clauses. They were meant to be a quick and inexpensive way of avoiding work stoppages and litigation over breach of the agreement. However, decades of labor-management relations has shown that for many labor organizations and employers, the process is one of simply going through the motions, and while it may serve its purpose of avoiding work stoppages, many issues remain unresolved, resulting in labormanagement animosity, worker dissatisfaction and lost productivity. In evaluating the effectiveness of a grievance-arbitration procedure, labor and management should perhaps consider the following:Do grievances get filed due to personality conflicts between the employee, the job steward, and the supervisor?

Are there other non-contractual or cultural issues which often form the basis of grievances? Do the same types of grievances continue to arise? Is managements final response to a grievance almost always the same? Do the majority of grievances appear to be filed by a group of certain employees, arising out of the same department or job classification? Do supervisors interpret and apply the same contract provisions in an inconsistent fashion? Do supervisors lack appropriate interpersonal skills and understanding of the contract? Do management and/or labor consider the time spent in the grievance process to be wasted? Do employees feel like they have not been heard in grievance meetings? Do some grievances go un-filed due to the perception that the exercise is futile? Does productivity suffer as a result of unresolved grievances and employee frustration with the process? Is arbitration reserved for only the most serious of grievances, while other important issues are disregarded? Is arbitration often avoided, even in serious cases, for fear of the costs and uncertainty of the outcome?Is arbitration sometimes pursued for purely political reasons, either by labor or management? Does management consider the union weak and therefore unable to bear the costs of an arbitration? Are there ever any work stoppages or slowdowns as the result of employee frustration with the process? If the answer to a number of these questions is yes, it is arguable that the effectiveness of the parties grievance-arbitration procedure is suspect, and is not a truly productive method of

resolving workplace disputes. Ultimately, the dissatisfaction and frustration with the process can lead to an unhealthy climate for labor-management relations, with resultant reduced productivity and profitability. B. How Grievances are Typically Resolved. In resolving a dispute, whether in labor-management relations or elsewhere, people tend to focus on their rights, their power, or their interests. When one focuses on their rights, they choose to pursue some independent remedy for the wrong they feel they have suffered. When one focuses on power in resolving disputes, they try to coerce or force their opponent into doing something they would not otherwise do, generally by imposing costs on the other party. On the other hand, when parties focus on resolving disputes by dealing with their interests, they attempt to address what is really driving the underlying conflict. Interests are different than ones position on an issue. A position is the partys stance on the issue, while interests are those needs and desires which underlie the position. (Ury, Brett & Golberg, 1988). Applying these concepts to a dispute in the labor-management context, consider a hypothetical. Assume Joe, a supervisor, was recently promoted out of the bargaining unit to a lead position, based primarily on the fact that he impressed management with his hard work. However, Joe is more concerned with getting product out the door than he is with learning the contract and dealing with his employees on a personal level. Keith, one of the employees in Joes

department, has been with the company for a number of years, and although hes not a bad employee, simply does not work quite as fast as some of the other employees in the department. Additionally, Joe and Keith used to work together, and while Keith would never want a lead person position and did not bid on the job, he does not like being told what to do by Joe, who has less seniority in the company. The company has recently made some technological improvements and performed some internal engineering studies which changed the production quotas in Joes department. The management rights clause of the contract states that the company has the right to determine the method and manner of operations and to utilize its personnel to achieve the most efficient operation of the plant. However, the contract also requires the company to negotiate any affect on wages due to any substantial change in the methods of work. Keith has encountered some difficulty in meeting the new production standard and has been verbally counseled by Joe on two occasions, in somewhat less than a pleasant tone. The next step for Joe is to issue Keith a first written warning. Additionally, in his effort to increase production in the department, Joe has taken it upon himself to chip in and work on some machines during employee breaks and after hours. Obviously, the contract prohibits lead persons from performing bargaining unit work

except in the case of emergencies or when bargaining unit employees are not available. On Keiths next day when he failed to meet production, Joe gave him a formal written warning for failure to meet production. At that time, Keith informed Joe that he was going to have the steward file a grievance not only over the written warning, but also for Joe performing bargaining unit work. Keiths grievances are denied at the first two steps, and again at the step three meeting. The company takes the position that the written warning is valid, since it had the right to make the technological improvements and the engineering studies were valid and correct. The company also takes the position that Joe has only performed bargaining unit work in an emergency and when bargaining unit employees are otherwise not available. Keith and the union are then left with the choice of demanding arbitration on both issues, or letting the grievances die with Keith simply lumping it and going back to work. If Keith and the union were to focus on their rights under the contract, they would proceed to arbitration. Their position is that the engineering studies resulted in a substantial change in the method of work, which affects Keiths wages, and that Joe has performed bargaining unit work. Based on its rights, the companys position is that the engineering studies do not constitute a material change in the method of work, that they have the right to determine the most efficient method of operation, and Joes work was required by necessity.

If power is going to be used, Keith would go back to work, unhappy, and either do just enough to avoid another write-up; or worse, deliberately slow down his production, daring Joe to write him up again to the point of termination. The companys power is in its perceived ability to more easily withstand the cost of arbitration, as well as the threat of Keiths termination. Looking at the parties interests, Keith wants to be treated fairly and with respect. The unions interest is in having fair production standards, and the avoidance of lead persons performing work which can and should be performed by bargaining unit employees. The companys interest is in its ability to set standards for the efficient and profitable operation of the business, having Keith perform according to the production standards, and in allowing lead persons to perform work when necessary to meet production requirements.Depending upon the context, each approach has certain implications. Specifically in the labor-management arena, the following factors should be considered: Transaction Costs. What will be the cost of a particular approach? The most obvious potential costs will be economic. Beyond money, there is the time and emotional energy invested in the dispute. There will also be opportunity costs -- the time and money lost in pursuing the dispute that could have been used more effectively in a productive fashion. Satisfaction with the Outcome. Will both parties be satisfied with the outcome, and the process utilized to get there? Will the parties feel like they have had a fair

shake that their concerns have been addressed, and feel some sense of approval with the result? Effect on the Relationship. What will be the long-term effect of the outcome on the parties relationship? Will they be able to work together productively in the future, or will there be some scar tissue and the relationship be weakened? Recurrence. Will the resolution of the problem last? Will the same or related dispute arise again? (Ury, et al., 1988). In our hypothetical, if Keith exercises his rights and goes to arbitration, or uses his power and goes back to work, except in a more unproductive fashion, there will definitely be costs involved, to both parties. The arbitrators fees and legal expenses will certainly be expensive. Additionally, both the union and the company will incur opportunity costs in dealing with the arbitration, when they could be spending their time in other, more productive work. Likewise, if Keith opts to lump it and goes back to work, there are costs in that approach as well, as his lack of productivity will likely continue. The same rationale applies with respect to the company. Arbitration will cause the company to potentially incur financial costs; and if Keith simply goes back to work, his lack of productivity will certainly represent a cost to the company. Arbitration also runs the risk that one or both parties are going to be dissatisfied with the

arbitration process and its outcome. Few parties find the formal process of an arbitration to be satisfying. As for the outcome, there will either be a winner and a loser, or as is sometimes the case, there are two perceived losers in arbitration. Similarly, if Keith goes back to work, there is certainly no satisfaction with the outcome, as his grievance has not been fully addressed. In this situation, with several collateral issues involved, the likelihood of either party walking away with an absolute win is somewhat doubtful. Also, regardless of which party wins the arbitration, or if Keith just goes back to work, there will certainly be an effect on the parties long-term relationship, and their ability to continue working together productively will be damaged. If the company wins the arbitration, Keith will be unhappy and unproductive, and if Keith wins, the companys ability to manage Keith and other employees will be impaired. Again, if there is no arbitration, the relationship is not improved by Keith simply going back to work and just getting by. Finally, neither arbitration nor Keiths continuing to work in his present state of mind will really bring closure. If the case goes to arbitration and Keiths position fails, it is likely that Keith and perhaps other employees will resist the new standards, again, by just getting by. On the other hand, if the companys position fails at arbitration, its ability to make further technological improvements and to manage its employees will be impaired.

The best alternative, then, may be for the parties to explore their interests and see if that approach can produce a more effective resolution of the problem. As mentioned above, Keiths real interest is in being treated fairly and with respect. Does this have anything to do with the technical wording of the contract? Not really. Is there some way the parties can come up with a solution to that problem? Perhaps. The unions interest is in having fair and reasonable production standards, and keeping lead persons from performing bargaining unit work. The companys interest is in having the ability to establish production standards which increase profitability, the need to ensure employees compliance with those standards, and the ability of lead persons to perform regular work when the need legitimately arises. While these certainly involve issues of contract interpretation, is there perhaps a way the company and the union can come up with a way to address these issues, at least until the next contract negotiations? Probably. Focusing on interests has the potential to solve the problem underlying the dispute more effectively than a focus on rights and/or power. Focusing on interests will result in lower costs, and tends to generate a higher level of satisfaction with the outcome than determining who is right or who has more power. If the parties are more satisfied, their relationship is improved, or

at least not harmed further, and the dispute is less likely to resurface. Focusing on rights and power, with the emphasis on winning and losing, usually makes the relationship more strained, and the loser looks for ways to exact revenge from the other party. (Ury, et al., 1988). II. THE ADVANTAGES OF A GRIEVANCE MEDIATION PROGRAM. A. Practical Issues with the Utilization of Arbitration. Although labor arbitration has been widely used in this country since the 1940s, it has been the subject of criticism for many years. It was intended to be fast, inexpensive and informal, and certainly does meet those objectives when compared to traditional court litigation. However, over time, much arbitration has grown into a slow, expensive, and formal process. (Goldberg, 1982; Schmedemann, 1987). There is a sense among many labor-management professionals that the decision in arbitration is often irrelevant to the problem that caused the grievance to be filed in the first place. It is not unusual for an arbitrator to find he is unable to get to the basic issues at the root of the problem. In fact, those issues are rarely dealt with in the arbitration, and may even be inadmissible in the arbitration hearing as they do not involve contract interpretation. Thats certainly understandable, since in order to be arbitrable, the grievance must be based on the terms of the contract, rather than whether the employers action was fair and reasonable in light of the concerns of the grieving employee. (Goldberg, 1982; 2005; McPherson, 1956).

There also appears to be a sense among many labor-management professionals that the arbitration process is abused at times. It is not unusual for a union to consent to an employees request that a grievance be taken to arbitration, regardless of its lack of merit in the eyes of the union representative. As a democratic organization, many union officials have found it politically advisable to take a grievance to arbitration and have the arbitrator deny it, rather than tell a union member that his or her grievance has no merit. Additionally, the potential threat of a claim for the breach of the duty of fair representation may increase the unions tendency to take a grievance without merit to arbitration. Even though the risk is small that the employee would win his fair representation claim under current legal standards, the union may opt to bear the costs of an arbitration rather than the litigation costs of defending a fair representation claim in federal court. (Goldberg, 1982). To a similar degree, the same analysis can be applied to management. While not a democratic organization, there may nevertheless be political considerations involved in denying an arguably valid grievance and forcing the union to arbitration. The employers labor relations staff may be pushed to such a position by the employers operations staff, and/or to avoid conceding that a supervisor erred in administering the contract. (Goldberg, 1982). The costly utilization of arbitration may also result from a hostile relationship between

the parties which makes the internal resolution of grievances difficult. Additionally, the parties may be ill-equipped to resolve grievances on their own, due to the lack of good negotiating skills and/or an inability to evaluate the likely outcome of an arbitration. (Goldberg, 1982). B. Understanding What Mediation Is and its Differences from Arbitration. Grievance mediation is the process in which the union and the employer, with the assistance of a mediator, try to resolve a grievance without going to arbitration. In a nutshell, a neutral and impartial mediator attempts to help the parties settle the grievance in a mutually satisfactory way, by going beyond the technical wording of the contract and exploring the underlying issues, sometimes in confidential private meetings with the parties. In mediation, resolving the dispute often requires innovative and creative approaches, dealing directly with the parties. The rules of evidence do not apply and no record of the proceeding is made. The mediator elicits the facts directly from the parties, in a narrative fashion, rather than through examination and cross-examination. The parties are not limited in their presentation to those matters that relate just to contract interpretation, but are free to raise any issues which may help in resolving the dispute. Although the mediator can give the parties an opinion as to how the dispute might be decided later at an arbitration hearing, he has no authority to compel the parties

to accept a resolution, and cannot render a final decision resolving the dispute. If successful, there will usually be a compromise settlement which will typically have no binding effect on similar disputes. If there is no settlement, nothing said or done at the mediation session can be used in a later arbitration. The mediator seeks to deal with the conflict as a dispute to be resolved, instead of an issue to be decided. (Goldberg 1982; 1983). Mediation differs from the direct negotiations between the parties in the preceding steps of the grievance process. First, mediators manage the communications between the parties by creating a comfortable atmosphere in which the parties can share their interests and concerns. They assist the parties in identifying divisive issues and areas of agreement, and explore options for compromise and settlement. They move the parties away from their personal animosity towards each other, and attempt to have them focus on the underlying problem. They encourage the parties to share information in a neutral setting, allow the venting of emotions, and help them think realistically about settlement. (Schmedemann, 1987). Additionally, mediators fill an educative role by serving as a negotiation coach to the parties, by providing them with the tools necessary to use effective negotiation skills. Mediators also fill a trust vacuum which has been created by the parties impending impasse in the grievance process. By obtaining the parties trust and confidence through active listening,

positive reinforcement and maintaining confidences, a mediator can transfer that trust to the process itself. In this manner, the parties may jointly realize the objective of reaching an agreement. (Schmedemann, 1987). On the other hand, arbitration is a structured process in which the neutral third party listens to evidence and is authorized to make a final and binding decision resolving the dispute. In arbitration, there is very little room for creativity by the arbitrator, who must decide the dispute solely on the issue presented under the contract and the evidence submitted by the parties. The process certainly resembles a trial, involving some formal discovery, sworn testimony with direct and cross examination of witnesses, formal admission of documents into evidence, and other technical rules of evidence. All evidence is taken in the presence of all parties. At the conclusion, there will be a winner and a loser, and the decision serves as precedent in other cases. C. The Benefits of Grievance Mediation Mediation, as an alternative to arbitration, has the potential to overcome many of the frustrations mentioned above, and the limitations imposed by the process of arbitration. Studies of the grievance mediation process in various labor-management relationships over the past 25 years have proven this potential. 1. Cost Savings. Cost savings can be achieved in a grievance mediation process since

there is no need for extensive preparation and presentation by attorneys; nor is there any need for transcripts, post-hearing briefs, or a written decision. (Goldberg, 1982; 2005). According to the latest statistics from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), the average per diem rate for arbitrators is $912.99. The average total charge, including the arbitrators fees and expenses, is $4,171.06. (Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2008). Of course, there are no actual studies on the fees and expenses of attorneys, if they are utilized, but it would not be unexpected to see those fees in the same neighborhood as the fees and expenses of the arbitrator, if not higher. The use of attorneys also increases costs due to the fact that in an effort to prevail in arbitration, an attorney is likely to broaden the scope of the arbitration to include procedural and technical issues not customarily used by nonlawyers. A common example is an issue with arbitrability due to timeliness or other defects in the underlying grievance. This increases not only the time and expense of the attorney, but also those of the arbitrator, who must consider these issues in order to resolve the grievance. (Goldberg, 1982).These numbers pale in comparison to the expenses of mediation. First, if a mediator is utilized from the FMCS or similar state agency, there is no cost since these entities typically do not charge a fee for this service. (Gregory, 1980). The Mediation Research and Education

Project (MREP) of the Northwestern University Law School has been conducting and maintaining records on grievance mediation since 1980. The programs clients consist of many well-recognized companies and unions in the transportation, communication and coal industries. The records of this organization reveal that the average charge for their approved grievance mediators is $498.94 per mediation. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2008). This benefit is made more attractive by the fact that many small employers and unions have limited resources to spend on arbitrations. Small employers without sufficient labor relations staff and/or legal counsel may have made an erroneous determination in denying a grievance, the dollar effect of which will only be compounded by the time consumed in scheduling and completing the typical arbitration. Likewise, a small union may have an important issue to address, but with a small or shrinking treasury, does not have the financial resources to spend on an arbitration. (Bowers, 1980). 2. Increased Speed. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. It is important that a grievance be settled as quickly as possible, as time delays may harden the rift between the parties. (Gregory, 1980). Likewise, in discharge cases or when the alleged contractual violation is continuing, potential monetary liability continues to escalate.

According to the latest available statistics from the FMCS, the average time between the request for an arbitration panel and the arbitrators award is 285.86 days. (Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2005). Perhaps this can be explained by the lack (or perceived lack) of arbitrators with the necessary experience to handle arbitrations who are acceptable to both parties. Its fair to say that experienced arbitrators are in high demand, while those with relatively less experience are reasonably available for scheduling. Substantial time can also be wasted in the selection of an arbitrator (not to mention the cost involved), since each party attaches significant importance to the identity of the arbitrator. Each party tends to believe that a potential arbitrators decision can be predicted from his or her prior decisions. The selection of an inexperienced arbitrator renders the union or company representatives subject to criticism in the event the grievance is lost. This time spent in finding and scheduling the right arbitrator only increases the time delay. (Goldberg, 1982). Studies have shown that a mediation is quicker than arbitration (which can take a day to present a single case), due to the informality of the process. There is no need for the use of subpoenas and discovery, or the elaborate development of strategy by counsel. As there is no perceived bias in mediators as opposed to arbitrators, the selection process is not an issue.

(Goldberg, 1982). Studies indicate that a mediation can be conducted within approximately 45 days from the date of the request for a mediator. Additionally, most mediations can be completed in a couple of hours, and several grievances can be resolved in a single day, if necessary. (Goldberg, 2005). 3. Improved Negotiation Skills and Relationships. An interesting benefit of a grievance mediation process is the likelihood that after participating in the process, the parties have an increased ability to resolve grievances without a mediators help. After learning an interest-based approach to resolving disputes, the parties learn how to use these tools to resolve disputes without a mediators help, at earlier stages. The tools developed in mediation can help the parties approach other disputes in the same fashion. In fact, the potential exists with mediation to transform the groups used in mediation into groups organized for the purpose of resolving other issues in the labor-management relationship. (Goldberg, 1983; 2005; Schnedemann, 1987). In a 2003 study, 83% of the participants in a grievance mediation program stated they were more able to resolve grievances after having participated in mediations. When asked the reason why, the participants stated that it was because they were better able to communicate. In that same study, 65% thought that the use of interest-based grievance mediation had led to an

improved relationship between the union and the company. The primary reason given was that grievance mediation established a cooperative atmosphere which carried over to other issues. (Goldberg, 2005). Along that same line, grievance mediation can help eliminate the scar tissue caused by arbitration. (Block, Beck & Olson, 1996). Since there is a winner and a loser in arbitration, the loser is often frustrated and hurt by the result, which impairs the parties longterm relationship. This effect will have its greatest impact on employers who place a high priority on promoting workable relationships with their union. (Bowers, 1980). Along that same line, arbitration typically involves the use of attorneys and other third parties whose focus is on winning the grievance. As these representatives are not involved in the parties day-to-day relationship, they may be less concerned about the future effect of the resolution on the parties continuing working relationship. (Goldberg, 1982). With its focus on self-determination between the parties, mediation reduces the alienation and tension that typically arises in a labor relations dispute, and has the potential to create an environment for mutual understanding and trust. As a result, the parties find it possible to resume and promote a good working relationship. (Schnedemann, 1987).4. Increased Satisfaction with the Process. A settlement that results from an interestbased grievance mediation process is voluntary and has the potential produce a result which is

more satisfactory to both parties (compared to arbitration, where only one party wins), and therefore, more likely to last. In fact, a recent study in the coal industry revealed that the satisfaction rate with compromise outcomes in mediation was 68% for union representatives and 89% for company representatives. (Goldberg, 2005). Mediation permits the parties to address the underlying reasons why the issue arose, and the interests underlying the issue. Once this is accomplished, the parties can facilitate a solution with which both can live. In mediation, the parties generally feel as though they have participated in a fair process, if it is handled correctly, since they have had the opportunity to tell their story directly to the other side and to the mediator. Mediation gives the parties control over the process and the ability to speak directly to the mediator (in private, if necessary), and inform the mediator of what is truly important to them. Having been heard directly by the mediator, the parties are more likely to be satisfied with the process. (Block, et al., 1996). Along that same line, parties in a dispute tend to feel better about a result which is based on negotiation, rather than one which is imposed by a third-party neutral. This is especially true where the disputants have a continuing relationship, as in labor relations. Turning the dispute over to a third-party decision-maker is somewhat defeatist, and has the tendency to imply that the

parties cannot settle their own disputes. Certainly, it also runs the risk that one party will be found at fault. (Schmedemann, 1987). 5. Impact on Settlement Rates. The effect of mediation on grievance settlement rates is well-established. Since 1980, MREP program referenced above has conducted 3,615 grievance mediations. Of those, 85.8% have resulted in a settlement. As will be discussed in more detail below, the effect was not impacted significantly based on the type of issue presented (i.e. discipline, discharge, or contract interpretation). As to the type of settlement, from 1990 to 2007, MREP records indicate that 78% resulted in a compromise settlement, 5.2% resulted in the employer granting the grievance, and 14.3% resulted in the union withdrawing the grievance. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2008). In view of all of the advantages discussed in this section, it is reasonable to suggest that mediated settlements tend to be durable and enjoy a high rate of compliance. (Schnedemann, 1987). D. Arguments Against Mediation. Although the positives of a grievance mediation program should be evident, there are some arguments which are often made by those who are unfamiliar with the process, and should be addressed. 1. The Narcotic Effect. It is often argued that the availability of mediation will decrease the pressure to negotiate effectively and seek settlement at earlier stages of the grievance

process. One party may view mediation as more attractive than accepting the other partys final offer, so there may be a reluctance to make any concessions at the lower levels of the process. (Goldberg, 1983; House, 1992; Schnedemann, 1987). While this argument may have some merit, it ignores the fact that in practice, such a strategy only prolongs the inevitable. If a mediation is to take place, concessions and compromise will occur, so the parties would be well-advised to engage in those trade-offs earlier in the process, without going through the time incurred in a mediation. Further, experience shows that the more the parties become accustomed to using the skills learned in mediation, the more likely they are to use those tools earlier in the process. (McPherson, 1956).2. Added Time. There is also the argument that in those cases where mediation is not successful in resolving the grievance, the time involved in attempting to resolve the grievance has actually been increased. Conversely, this argument can be disposed of rather easily. If this risk is perceived to be present, the parties can agree to proceed with selection of the arbitrator and scheduling the arbitration while at the same time scheduling and engaging in the mediation. As the mediation can be scheduled rather quickly, the mediation will be concluded well in advance of the scheduled arbitration date, without any additional delay. (House, 1992; McPherson, 1956).

3. Showing Your Cards. Some parties might be reluctant to go to mediation out of the fear that the process could in some way prejudice their case in arbitration if the mediation is unsuccessful. Of course, this risk is initially reduced by the fact that the mediator cannot serve as the arbitrator of the same grievance. With that being the case, mediation can influence the outcome of the arbitration only by its effect on the presentation of the case at arbitration if the grievance is not settled. Aside from this argument there may be testimony or documents which a party believes can cause a bombshell effect in arbitration, and that party is reluctant to disclose that information in an attempt to settle the grievance at mediation. However, especially where both sides will have competent representation at the arbitration, the chance of being ambushed by a smoking gun at the arbitration is possible, but not very likely. Competent representatives for each party will often subpoena documents prior to the arbitration which will otherwise obviate the effect of such damaging evidence. A strategic decision to withhold such information in response to a subpoena may have the effect of the arbitrator ruling it inadmissible at the hearing. Additionally, if a party desires to attempt to withhold such evidence at the mediation, in the desire to hold it until arbitration, that party can confidentially disclose it to the mediator, who can creatively utilize the information, without actually disclosing the specifics, in an attempt to

help the other party realize the risk in going forward to arbitration. On the other hand, the use of mediation can result in a sharper focus on the issues and a clearer appreciation of the factors that are most relevant to a decision. As a result, the parties could actually present a better case in arbitration, having first gone through mediation. (McPherson, 1956). 4. We Dont Need It. Some parties would argue that their labor-management relationship is mature and sophisticated enough that they are entirely capable of resolving their grievances without mediation. To some extent, this argument is valid. However, for it to have merit, the parties must indeed be mature and sophisticated enough to objectively evaluate the merits of a grievance and arrive at a mutually satisfactory outcome. That condition is indeed rare. Many labor-management relationships are too new to have achieved that level of refinement and skill. In many others, the level of conflict is too high, the negotiating skills too low, and the internal political pressures too great to engage in true interest-based negotiations. In some situations, the inability to settle grievances is caused by a lack of knowledge as to the likely result of an arbitration, or the failure to fully explore the various settlement possibilities and options. A skillful mediator can serve the role of a negotiation coach, and disarm some of the conflict by encouraging the parties and helping them to communicate more effectively. The

mediator can help bring about settlement by having the parties explore different options not previously considered. The political pressures can be reduced by a mediator who is familiar with arbitration, and who can advise that a grievance should be withdrawn or granted. (Goldberg, 1982; Schnedemann, 1987). 5. Futility-No Compromise Available. The company may view the union as pressing for mediation of grievances with the hopes of obtaining some relief, but which the company believes have no merit and/or which require a ruling, not a compromise. In response to this argument, it should first be remembered that a mediators function does not always involve concessions or compromise. Mediation can reduce the pressure on the union to take those grievances without merit to arbitration for fear of the political and legal consequences of failing to do so. There certainly are cases where a skillful mediator can, and should, convince one party or the other that their position lacks merit. In those (few) cases which have absolutely no merit, the grievance may indeed be withdrawn. A qualified mediator can help clarify the issues and help the parties see the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. The mediators judgment that the grievance is without merit or that a particular settlement should be accepted might be more persuasive to the grievant than similar statements by a union representative. The grievant may be aware of the

financial costs of arbitration, and may discredit the same advice by the union representative as designed to conserve union funds. As a neutral expert in the field, the mediators advice on the merits of the case may carry more weight with the grievant. (McPherson, 1956). Beyond this analysis, there are certainly cases which, although perceived as without merit, do call for a compromise. In any legal dispute, there are rarely any slam dunks. Even in arbitration, many awards cannot be classified as total victory for either party. It is sometimes argued that compromise decisions may be due to the lack of courage on the arbitrators part, but are more often than not due to the failure of both parties to comply with the contract. Due to factual discrepancies or vagueness of contract language, it may be advisable for the parties to seek a compromise. The point is that compromise solutions are not unique to mediation, but are just as often found in arbitration as well, and the parties should be reluctant to hastily categorize a dispute as non-negotiable. (McPherson, 1956; Schnedeman, 1987).6. Institutional Barriers. As indicated above, the coal industry study revealed that the majority of both labor and management representatives who have utilized grievance mediation were satisfied with the process. (Goldberg, 2005). However, other comprehensive studies of the utilization and satisfaction rate of grievance mediation are noticeably absent in the research. Anecdotally, practitioners in the field are aware that grievance mediations are conducted, often

by FMCS personnel, yet the FMCS posts no statistics regarding utilization and/or satisfaction. Practitioners also generally recognize, albeit again anecdotally, that external mediation of grievances prior to arbitration is the exception rather than the norm. Different reasons have been advanced for this lack of usage. One study revealed that an employer may find some strategic benefit in forcing the union to make an economic determination on whether to proceed to arbitration. (Block, et al., 1996). Additionally, it has been argued that employers may prefer the resolution of a grievance which provides a rights-based definite answer. (Goldberg, 2005). Beyond these arguments, perhaps a more fundamental principle is at stake regarding why grievance mediation has not achieved full recognition in the resolution of contractual grievances. Generally speaking, the organizational interests of unions may be inapposite to an interest-based resolution of grievances. It can be argued that by their very nature, unions are rights-based organizations which need to maintain membership and vigorously advocate on behalf of their members, and the grievance arbitration machinery is at the heart of that ideology. Conversely, with its emphasis on compromise and collaborative resolution of disputes, grievance mediation can be viewed as an attack on the unions organizational identity. By winning a grievance

through arbitration, the union demonstrates its continuing relevance to its membership. Additionally, the processing of grievances through arbitration is seen as a training ground for union stewards into leadership roles. Both of these factors help to perpetuate the unions identity as a vigorous advocacy organization, consistent with its historical tradition. (Monahan, 2008). III. HOW DOES GRIEVANCE MEDIATION WORK? A. Determining What Types of Grievances are Suitable for Mediation. As indicated above, grievance mediation has been successful in all types of grievances. According to records from MREP from 1990 to 2007, the settlement rate in discharge cases was 86.3%; in other discipline, 95.1%; and in contract interpretation, 91.7%. It is, therefore, evident that the parties can use the process effectively as an alternative to arbitration, regardless of the basis for the grievance. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2008). Of course, discipline and discharge cases are usually quite emotionally contentious and factually contested. Nevertheless, the mediation process provides ample opportunity for resolution. In these cases, credibility is generally an issue, and a neutral party must decide which party is telling the truth or which partys version of the facts is more credible. That being the case, there is very little need for a long written opinion explaining why the neutral accepts one partys version over the others, and a mediators advisory opinion can serve that purpose.

Further, discipline and discharge cases often hinge not upon whether the grievant engaged in the prohibited conduct, but whether the penalty was appropriate under the circumstances. Mediation offers the potential of settlement in these cases due to the wide range of possible disciplinary penalties, without necessarily creating a precedent in other cases. (Goldberg, 1982). Some of the same arguments arise in cases of contract interpretation. In these cases, the personal rights of an individual employee may not be as significant, so there are a wide range of potential settlements which can be negotiated between the company and the union. Additionally, while the parties may need the opinion of a neutral, they do not necessarily need a long, expensive written opinion explaining the decision. There are also issues of contract interpretation where the contract is very vague on an issue, or does not address it at all, but the issue is too important to risk in the hands of an unpredictable arbitrator. A good example of this issue is the companys right to contract-out work. Although arbitrators frequently deal with this type of issue, a mutually acceptable resolution is rarely achieved. Mediation offers the opportunity to work out such a resolution, without running the risk of an adverse decision from an arbitrator. (Goldberg, 1982). Of course, there are certain types of grievances that perhaps lend themselves to arbitration over mediation. Where there are complex factual issues, testimony under oath in

arbitration may be necessary. Additionally, in those grievances which raise issues where the reasoning behind an action is important and a precedent must be set, arbitration may be needed. Finally, although the parties should be reluctant to accept this fact, there are cases where the parties hold their positions so firmly that compromise is unlikely, and arbitration may be needed. If this is the case, the parties should keep in mind that the more important the issue, the greater the risk of an adverse opinion from an arbitrator and its binding effect on the parties future interests. Thus, it rarely hurts the parties to make an attempt at mediation to ascertain if those positions can be modified. (Goldberg, 1982). Notwithstanding the above arguments, it should always be remembered that grievance mediation is a supplement to, and not a replacement for, grievance arbitration. It would be irresponsible to suggest that grievance mediation is successful in all cases, as there are admittedly grievances in which the parties interests are too much in conflict for compromise and settlement. In those cases, and/or where the parties require a final adjudicated resolution, arbitration will remain an option. (Roberts, Wolters, Holley & Field, 1990).B. How the Process is Initiated. Since grievance mediation is a voluntary process, the parties need to decide how the process is going to be invoked (assuming the contract does not require a particular method).

Typically, the program is designed so that both parties must consent to mediation, or where either party can submit a grievance to mediation. An alternative procedure is for the parties to agree that all grievances will be submitted to mediation, unless both parties agree that a particular grievance not be submitted to mediation. The last two options essentially allow a single party to submit the grievance to mediation. The last option should logically result in the largest proportion of grievances proceeding to mediation, since the parties will assume all grievances go to mediation, unless both parties opt-out. (Goldberg, 1982). The argument in favor of the first option is that the parties consent to mediate shows their willingness to settle, and this generally maximizes the likelihood of success. On the other hand, if the consent of both parties is required, and one party objects, for whatever reason, the use of mediation will be reduced, which will increase the number of grievances submitted to arbitration. Likewise, if only one partys consent is required (as in the second and third options), some grievances will be mediated when one party is not willing to compromise. This may arguably reduce the likelihood of settlement. (Goldberg, 1982). Even though there is some argument that mutual consent should be required in order to help ensure success, such is not necessarily the case. While a party might not initially consent to

mediation in the first place, that position might (or should) change during the mediation process due to the cooling of tempers, the passage of time, the introduction of new facts, and/or the presence of a skilled mediator. (Goldberg, 1982). While some grievances can be more difficult to mediate than others, there is rarely a grievance that is impossible to settle. No matter how dim the prospect is for settlement at the outset, there is always the chance that a mediator can help the parties develop a mutually satisfactory solution. Although mediation may not always be successful, it is unlikely that the parties will be able to accurately determine in advance that the effort will fail. (McPherson, 1956). Of course, there are some relationships where mutual consent may be preferable. If the representatives of the parties are skilled negotiators and are usually successful in negotiating the settlement of grievances at earlier stages of the process, providing one party with the authority to invoke the process may not be an effective utilization of the process. By the same token, if the parties relationship is highly contentious, allowing one party to invoke mediation may be considered a waste of time, or an attempt to abuse the process. (Goldberg, 1982). In view of all of these arguments, it would appear that the most desirable and effective procedures are the second or third options. Especially if the parties are in the infancy of the process, the first option may be too easily dismissed. Whichever option is agreed upon, the

parties can either provide for the process in their contract negotiations; or, if midterm in the collective bargaining agreement, enter into a memorandum of understanding or similar agreement setting forth the procedure decided upon. Upon deciding the procedure for invoking the process, the parties should enter into a universal agreement to mediate, setting forth the parameters of the process. C. The Agreement to Mediate. After the parties have decided on a uniform procedure for how the process will be invoked and administered, the parties should sign an agreement to mediate for each grievance which goes to mediation.Initially, the agreement should obviously provide that the grievant is entitled to be present at the mediation conference. It should also provide that if the grievant chooses not to be present, the union may proceed in his or her absence. With respect to other attendees, the agreement should state that each party will have the right to have one principal spokesperson at the conference. With respect to other attendees, the parties will need to seek agreement on how many other employees will be allowed to attend, and whether their attendance will be with, or without pay. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2007). The agreement should also provide that any written material presented to the mediator will be returned to the party presenting that material at the end of the mediation conference,

although the mediator may have the option of retaining one copy of the grievance and any settlement agreement for the purpose of record-keeping and statistical analysis. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2007). With respect to the conference itself, the agreement should provide that the proceedings will be informal, and that the evidence at the mediation will not be limited to the facts presented at earlier steps of the grievance process. It should also state that the rules of evidence do not apply, and that no transcript or other record of the conference will be made. The agreement should also state that the mediator will have the authority to meet with each party and/or their representatives separately, and that nothing disclosed in those conferences will be shared with the other party without the consent of the disclosing party. It should also indicate that the mediator will not have the authority to compel or issue an order resolving the grievance. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2007). If no settlement is reached and it appears to the mediator that the parties are at impasse, the agreement should indicate that unless both parties agree otherwise, the mediator will provide the parties with an oral advisory opinion as to how, in his or her professional judgment, the grievance will be decided at a subsequent arbitration based upon the facts presented at the mediation. According to the agreement, the mediator will be obligated to state the legal and

factual grounds for his or her opinion. The agreement should provide that either party may reject the advisory opinion, although the parties may continue to negotiate after receiving the mediators advisory opinion. It should also be stated that the advisory opinion, if accepted by the parties, will not constitute a precedent and/or establish a practice for the resolution of any other grievances, unless the parties agree. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2007). If the mediation does not result in a settlement, the agreement should provide that the parties are free to request arbitration, and provide the number of days within which a demand for arbitration must be made, if it has not already been requested. Additionally, the agreement should provide that nothing contained in the mediation agreement will be considered as an acknowledgement by the company that the grievance is subject to arbitration, and the company reserves the right to raise the issue of arbitrability at a later time. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2007). Also concerning arbitration, the agreement should provide that if the grievance goes to mediation, no person serving as a mediator in that mediation can serve as the arbitrator of the same grievance. Further, it should state that nothing said or done by the mediator or any party can be referred to or used in the arbitration, or in any other grievance, mediation conference, or

arbitration, unless it was said or done in a prior step of the grievance presented. (Mediation Research and Education Project, 2007).D. The Mediators Advisory Opinion. As indicated above, if the parties in a grievance mediation appear to be at impasse, most grievance mediation programs allow the mediator to give the parties an immediate oral advisory opinion as to how the grievance will likely be decided if it does go on to arbitration, unless both parties agree that no such opinion be stated by the mediator. This opinion is not necessarily based on notions of fairness, but solely on the collective bargaining agreement, which is what the arbitrator would be deciding. Of course, the opinion is not final and binding, but is advisory. It is delivered orally, and usually accompanied by a statement of the reasons behind the opinion. It can be used as the basis for further settlement discussions, or for withdrawal or granting of the grievance. If the case does later go to arbitration, the advisory opinion is not admissible. (Goldberg, 1982; 1983). There are two reasons for the rendering of an advisory opinion. First, the opinion gives the union and the company some comfort in realizing that, even if the grievance is not settled, they have nevertheless learned a skilled neutrals evaluation of their case. Second, the advisory opinion may discourage the use of arbitration when no settlement is possible. This may be the

result of providing the parties with an analysis of the case which was previously not understood or appreciated, or by giving the representatives the information necessary to show their constituents that their position is not valid. If that is the case, further settlement discussions after the opinion is given can enhance the possibility of settlement. (Goldberg, 1982). There are certainly some arguments against the use of the advisory opinion. First, the opinion may strengthen the winners determination to go to arbitration if the loser does not accept the opinion. Second, the mediators opinion, without having the opportunity for a full hearing on the case, could be wrong and ultimately different from the arbitrators eventual ruling. Third, there is the risk that the mediator will use the opinion in confidential meetings to persuade one party to modify their settlement position, and use a different opinion to persuade the other party to do the same. The fourth argument is that an advisory opinion may distract the parties from the goal of settling the grievance through interest-based negotiations, and cause them to rely excessively on persuading the mediator on the correctness of their argument based on the facts and contract interpretation. (Goldberg, 1982). With respect to the first argument, it should be pointed out that while the opinion may encourage the winner to stand firm on his position, it discourages the loser from doing so, and should ultimately reduce the likelihood of the case going to arbitration. As for the second

argument, the probability of the mediators opinion being different from the arbitrators ultimate ruling is not likely. In most cases, the arbitrator forms a tentative decision at the conclusion of the hearing. There is no reason to believe that the information gained in the mediation would be materially different from the evidence in arbitration, and the opinion from each should therefore be essentially consistent, especially if the underlying issue involves a principle on which most arbitrators agree. The third argument can be addressed by assuring that the mediator is careful not to talk out of both sides of his mouth in confidential meetings, but provide the opinion only in a joint session when it appears the parties may be at impasse. (Goldberg, 1982). Perhaps the strongest argument against an advisory opinion is the fourth issue. By concentrating on pure contract interpretation principles, the parties and the mediator are certainly not promoting the parties relationship and their long-term problem-solving abilities. That is why the advisory opinion should be reserved until there has been a thorough discussion of the interests and needs of the parties, and only after a substantial effort has been made to formulate a settlement without regard to the likely outcome of the arbitration. The parties can be more creative if they are thinking about mutually satisfactory outcomes than if they are making arguments which are intended to persuade the mediator about which party is right under the facts and the contract. (Goldberg, 1982).

Having addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the advisory opinion, it does serve a useful purpose, especially where the representatives of the parties are not highlyskilled in evaluating the probable outcome of arbitrations. Likewise, where the parties representatives need an advisory opinion in order to convince their constituents of the futility of going to arbitration, it would be unwise eliminate the advisory opinion. IV. LEGAL ISSUES UNDER A GRIEVANCE MEDIATION PROGRAM. A. Issues with the Duty of Fair Representation. Under the duty of fair representation, the union is required to represent all bargaining unit employees without discrimination or hostility, and in good faith. In the context of grievance handling, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a union is not required to process every grievance to arbitration, and employees have no absolute right to have a grievance taken to arbitration. Additionally, the Court has encouraged settlement of grievances informally, which should support the idea of grievance mediation. Specifically, the Court has indicated: Through this settlement process, frivolous grievances are ended prior to the most costly and time-consuming step in the grievance procedures. Moreover, both sides are assured that similar complaints will be treated consistently, and major problem area in the interpretation of the collective bargaining contract can be isolated and resolved. (Vaca v. Sipes). In pursuing this process, the Court has stated that union discretion is essential to the

proper functioning of the collective bargaining system, and has given unions broad discretion in the handling and the processing of grievances. (Electrical Workers v. Foust). Generally, the courts allow a union to decide whether to take a case to arbitration, if the chances of success in arbitration are slight. (Buchanan v. NLRB). As indicated above, it is sometimes argued that unions often arbitrate grievances which do not have merit because of internal union pressure or the threat of a suit for breach of the duty of fair representation. One of the advantages of the grievance mediation process is that it can reduce the pressure on the union to arbitrate grievances which fall into these categories. As also indicated above, mediation has the potential to accomplish this result since the advisory opinion of a neutral mediator that a grievance does not have merit, or that a particular settlement proposal should be accepted, may be accepted by the grievant more readily than the same opinion from a union representative. If the grievant accepts the mediators opinion, it is reasonable to expect that the chance of a lawsuit for breach of the duty of fair representation is reduced. (Goldberg, 1982). There is an additional positive effect which grievance mediation brings to the risk of an allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation. If the grievant does insist that a frivolous grievance go to arbitration, the mediation process can strengthen the unions refusal. If

the grievant does file suit for breach of the duty in that case, the union could defend the case by showing that the mediator provided an advisory opinion that the union was likely to lose at arbitration. Since the advice of legal counsel to the union that a grievance lacks the merit to go to arbitration can serve as a defense to a suit for breach of the duty of fair representation, it is reasonable to expect that the mediators opinion should have essentially the same effect. (Goldberg, 1982). B. Grievances that Involve Unfair Labor Practices. In the case of grievances for contract violations where the employee has also filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the National Labor Relations Board, the Board will generally defer its decision on the charge to the arbitration process, if certain requirements are met. In the context of arbitration, those requirements are as follows: (1) The arbitration proceedings were fair and regular; (2) All parties agreed to be bound by the arbitrators ruling; (3) The facts and issues surrounding the unfair labor practice must have been raised and considered in the arbitration; and (4) The arbitration decision should not conflict with the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act. (Spielberg Mfg. Co.; Collyer Insulated Wire). Although this analysis would seem to apply to cases involving mediation of grievances, many earlier decisions of the Board refused to apply it in that context. The Board had indicated

that grievance settlements could not satisfy these requirements since the settlement agreement did not address the ULP charge, or that there was no hearing or ruling that the Board could review to ensure that the requirements had been met. In short, the Board seemed to indicate that an adversarial arbitration would be required in order for the Board to defer it decision to the arbitration process. (Bowers, 1980; Gregory, 1980; Hardin & Higgins, 2001). In more recent rulings, however, the Board has indicated some support for deferral when settlement is the result of negotiations between the parties. Not surprisingly, the Board has stated that deferral to settlements supports the laws policy of favoring private resolution of labor disputes. In fact, deferral to negotiated settlements serves that objective better than the arbitration process, since a settlement is the result of collective bargaining, while arbitration is the result of a adversarial hearing. Of course, the settlement process in mediation will still need to comply with the Boards requirements. (Alpha Beta; Hardin & Higgins, 2001).In order to satisfy the first criteria, that the mediation process be fair and regular, this requirement can easily be met. Even when there is no technical record in arbitration, the Board itself typically conducts an investigation of the underlying facts, which serves as a substitute for the written record of a hearing. Of course, that investigation should reveal that the grievant had notice of and was present at the mediation, and had an opportunity to speak in support of his

position. The second requirement, that the parties have agreed to be bound by the arbitrators decision, will certainly be satisfied in any negotiated settlement, since the parties will have signed the settlement agreement. (Goldberg, 1982). The third requirement that the facts and issues surrounding the ULP have been raised and considered at the arbitration, can also be satisfied in the mediation process. Where grievances also involve ULP charges, the settlement agreement can simply reflect that the facts surrounding the ULP were also raised and discussed, and that the settlement resolves the ULP as well as the grievance. Finally, grievance mediation can comply with the fourth criteria that the settlement be consistent with the National Labor Relations Act and Board policy. Simply stated, mediators who perform grievance mediations should have a good working knowledge of the NLRA and Board decisions, and ensure that the settlement is in compliance with those requirements. When these conditions are met, it is reasonable to suggest that the Board will defer to the negotiated settlement agreement. (Goldberg, 1982). V. CONCLUSION Briefly returning to the hypothetical grievance introduced earlier in this paper, there are several viable alternatives which the parties might explore in order to avoid the costs and other effects inherent in the arbitration route. With regard to Joes apparent lack of interpersonal skills,

perhaps the company would agree to provide Joe (and possibly other lead persons) with training in communication skills and related supervisory skills. Concerning the unions issue with the new production standards, perhaps the parties could agree to have an independent engineering study performed, with the results provided to the union, in order to justify the new standards. With respect to the unions grievance against Joe for performing bargaining unit work, perhaps the parties could enter into a memorandum of understanding more specifically setting forth the conditions under which lead persons can perform bargaining unit work. While each of these alternatives places some burden on the company and the union, it is reasonable to suggest that these proposals address the underlying interests of the parties, and have the potential to provide a cheaper, quicker, and more satisfactory resolution than could be obtained through arbitration. While arbitration has been and will continue to be necessary for resolving many disputes in labor relations, grievance mediation has the potential to provide a more effective resolution of m

ACKNOWLED GEMENT

It gives us great ecstasy of pleasure to convey our deep and

sincere thanks to our

Principal Dr. V. S.K. Venkatacha lapathy,

for his kind support,

which helped us tocomplete the project successfully. We have great

pleasure in expressing our sincere gratitude and hearty thanks to

our beloved Faculty

, Mrs.R.Hemala tha

Department of Management St udies

for consentin g to be our guide. Sh e had been a

great source of encourageme nt and inspiredus throughout

our project. We are greatly thankful to her for everything

she has done for us.We wo uld like to ex press our dee pest gratitud e to
Mr.Jayakumar

,
Head of theDep artment, Department of Management studies

for giving constant encourageme ntWe express our hearty thanks to

Mr.D.Umamahe swaran, Senior P ersonnel Officer, Lucas TVS Ltd.,

who provided valuable

guidance throughout the project in his busyschedule. We thank our

Management

,
Department Staffs

, and
Our Parents

for their support

andabove all to God for showering his blessing upon us.A special word

of thanks to all those we have failed to acknowledge.

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on Effectiveness of Grievance Handling Mechanism at Lucas-

TVSLimited,P uducherry.Grie vance is any kind of dissatisfaction with regard to pay,promotion,

suspension,wor kingcondition etc..The objective of the study is to find the effectiveness

of grievance handling mechanism beingfollowed. The sample size is 35 and the population

size is 140.The tools used for the study are Percentage method and Correlation.Th e study infers

that most of employees are highly satisfied with the mechanism being followed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLE S iLIST OF CHA RTS iiC H A P T E R T I T L E P A G

E N O . I I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 . 1 P r o f i l e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n 1 1 . 2 I n t r o d u c t i o n t o

t h e s t u d y 5 I I R E V I E W O F L I T E R A T U R E 6 I I I O B J E C T I V E S O F T H E

S T U D Y 1 2 I V R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y 1 3 V DATA ANA LYSIS AN D INTERP

RETATION 17VI6.1 FI NDINGS O F THE STU D Y 6.2SUGGES TIONS, RECOM MENDATIONS35 37V I I C O N C L U S I O N

38V I I I S C O P E AND LIMIT ATIONS OF T H E STUDY39

APPENDIC ES
ANNEXURE I

40ANNEXU RE II 41
LIST OF TABLES
T a b l e N o . T a b l e n a m

e P a g e N o :

1 o c u d

.1List f produ ts man facture 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Pages 6 to 52 are not shown in this preview.

Read the full version

Project Report
Download or Print Add To Collection

7.2K
READS

65
READCASTS

55
EMBED VIEWS

Search
TIP Press Ctrl-F to search anywhere in the document.

Info and Rating

Category: Research >Business & Economics Rating: (1 Rating) Upload 09/23/2009 Date: Copyright: Attribution Non-commercial Tags: This document has no tags.
Read online. Flag document for inapproriate content

Recommended

33 p.

PROJECT REPORT ON GRIEVANCE HANDLING

Dilnaz Khan 5751 Reads

50 p.

Grievance Handling
baskerkkk 12653 Reads

64 p.

A Study on Effectiveness of Grievance Redressal Procedure

saki05 5257 Reads

104 p.

reliance HR project
Ananyaa 39076 Reads Next

Featured

9 p.

Bake It Like You Mean It

OpenRoadMedia

14 p.

Recipes to Fuel BBQ Addiction

TheRecipeClub

7 p.

Oleander Girl
Simon and Schuster

5 p.

Polar Bear Swim Study

Scribd Next

Comments
Post comment syedalimech3 years ago 00 why u make a option that hinders download? but efficient IT specialist can break this content to downloaded like me.... thirumagal123 years ago 00 hello mam, please can you mail me this project to my email id. thirumagal.priya@gmail.com

thirumagal123 years ago 00 hello mam, please can you mail me this project to my email id. thirumagal.priya@gmail.com thirumagal123 years ago 00 hello mam, please can you mail me this project to my email id. thirumagal.priya@gmail.com rxsony3 years ago 00 hello mam , please send this project topic to my mail: pravinlive@yahoo.com contact: 9750757633 dariymilk3 years ago 00 hiiii.. rxsony3 years ago 00 hello mam , please send this project topic to my mail: pravinlive@yahoo.com contact: 9750757633 rxsony3 years ago 00 hello sir , please send this building project management topic to my mail: pravinlive@yahoo.com contact: 9750757633 rxsony3 years ago 00 hello sir , please send this building project management topic to my mail: pravinlive@yahoo.com contact: 9750757633 rxsony3 years ago 00 hello sir , please send this building project management topic to my mail: pravinlive@yahoo.com contact: 9750757633 venketesh3 years ago 00 i am doing BBM .can u send me "customer satisfaction in hyunda.my id {venketeshperumal@gmail.com} dariymilk3 years ago 00 hiiii.. venketesh3 years ago 00 i am doing BBM .can u send me "customer satisfaction in hyunda.my id {venketeshperumal@gmail.com} dariymilk3 years ago 00 hiiii.. venketesh3 years ago 00 i am doing BBM .can u send me "customer satisfaction in hyunda.my id {venketeshperumal@gmail.com} punam_chaudhary19853 years ago 00 HELLO MAM I am purusing mba (HR) this is very imprasive report can send me report copy my mail id jai.indoriya@gmail.commobile no -9336923800 venketesh3 years ago 00

i am doing BBM .can u send me "customer satisfaction in hyunda.my id {venketeshperumal@gmail.com} punam_chaudhary19853 years ago 00 HELLO MAM I am purusing mba (HR) this is very imprasive report can send me report copy my mail id jai.indoriya@gmail.commobile no -9336923800 venketesh3 years ago 00 i am doing BBM .can u send me "customer satisfaction in hyunda.my id {venketeshperumal@gmail.com} punam_chaudhary19853 years ago 00 HELLO MAM I am purusing mba (HR) this is very imprasive report can send me report copy my mail id jai.indoriya@gmail.commobile no -9336923800 venketesh3 years ago 00 i am doing BBM .can u send me "customer satisfaction in hyunda.my id {venketeshperumal@gmail.com} stalinvino3 years ago 00 This Helped me a lot folk... Thank you !! anilmail20063 years ago 00 i am doing mba. can u send me employee grivances project at my mail id in world format anilmail2006@gmail.com. please stalinvino3 years ago 00 This Helped me a lot folk... Thank you !! anilmail20063 years ago 00 i am doing mba. can u send me employee grivances project at my mail id in world format anilmail2006@gmail.com. please stalinvino3 years ago 00 This Helped me a lot folk... Thank you !! anilmail20063 years ago 00 i am doing mba. can u send me employee grivances project at my mail id in world format anilmail2006@gmail.com. please kukubara3 years ago 00 hello mam, iam saloni pursuing mba.. this project report is very nice and will help me a lot.. could you please mail it to me if possible...i would be very grateful.. thank you..my id is saloni_kukubara@yahoo.com adityasharma123 years ago 00 VERY GOOD kukubara3 years ago 00

hello mam, iam saloni pursuing mba.. this project report is very nice and will help me a lot.. could you please mail it to me if possible...i would be very grateful.. thank you..my id is saloni_kukubara@yahoo.com adityasharma123 years ago 00 VERY GOOD kukubara3 years ago 00 hello mam, iam saloni pursuing mba.. this project report is very nice and will help me a lot.. could you please mail it to me if possible...i would be very grateful.. thank you..my id is saloni_kukubara@yahoo.com ashu29feb3 years ago 00 I am interested in downloading Technology in Indian Banking 2008.I am a retired person and am interested to learn.Sir, It will be of great help if you could upload this file to me at bnb........ashu29febpimsr@gmail.com syedalimech3 years ago 00 why u make a option that hinders download? but efficient IT specialist can break this content to downloaded like me.... ashu29feb3 years ago 00 I am interested in downloading Technology in Indian Banking 2008.I am a retired person and am interested to learn.Sir, It will be of great help if you could upload this file to me at bnb........ashu29febpimsr@gmail.com syedalimech3 years ago 00 why u make a option that hinders download? but efficient IT specialist can break this content to downloaded like me.... ashu29feb3 years ago 00 I am interested in downloading Technology in Indian Banking 2008.I am a retired person and am interested to learn.Sir, It will be of great help if you could upload this file to me at bnb........ashu29febpimsr@gmail.com rxsony3 years ago 00 hello mam , please send this project topic to my mail: pravinlive@yahoo.com contact: 9750757633

About About Scribd Blog Join our team! Contact Us Premium Premium Reader Scribd Store Advertise with us Get started AdChoices Support Help FAQ Press Partners

 Legal

Publishers Developers / API Terms Privacy Copyright

Copyright 2013 Scribd Inc. Language: English

GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM Ministry of Steel has a well laid out three-tier grievance redressal mechanism which ensures fast disposal of grievances. In the Ministry, there are very few cases of grievances redressal and these are settled within a period of 3 months. Computerisation of grievance redressal has been done. One of the Joint Secretary functions as a Director of Public & Staff Grievances in respect of the entire Ministry of Steel, the only attached office and the various PSUs functioning under the Ministry of Steel. The overview of status of the public grievance redressal machinery in PSUs is as under:STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED (SAIL) Effective internal grievances redressal machinery exists in SAIL plants and units, separately for executives and non- executives. The grievance procedure has evolved after sustained deliberations and consent of employees, trade unions and associations. In fact, at Rourkela Steel Plant, the grievance redressal machinery bears its origin and draws strength from a tripartite settlement between RSP management and the then recognized trade union under the Industrial Act, which has laid down the constitution of bipartite grievance redressal committees and the

modalities of resolving the grievances raised by the workers through these committees. The grievances in SAIL plants/units are dealt in 3 stages and employees are given an opportunity at every stage to raise grievances relating to irregularities, working conditions, transfers, leave, work assignments and welfare amenities etc. Such issues are effectively settled through the time-tested system of grievance management. However, majority of the grievances are redressed informally in view of the participative nature of the environment existing in the steel plants. The system is comprehensive, simple and flexible and has proved effective in promoting harmonious relationships between employees and management.Status of public grievances/staff grievances for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 Name of Organisation /PSU Grievances outstanding as on 1.4.2003 No. of Grievances received during the period No. of cases disposed off No. of cases pending as on 31.3.2004 Steel Authority of India Ltd

95 2286 2294 132 RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD. (VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT Public Grievances: The system of redressal of public grievance has been streamlined, and its scope broadened to include complaints of suppliers, customers etc. Systematic recording of receipt and disposal of such grievances is being carried out. To provide requisite thrust in this area, one senior executive in the rank of Dy.General Manager has been nominated as officer on special duty (OSD) to handle and monitor the public grievances centrally. All heads of the departments have been advised to accord due priority for redressal of public grievances as per the time frame and in each department, one executive in the rank of Dy.Chief Manager /Asst.General Manager has been nominated to coordinate redressal of grievances. Staff Grievances: RINL has a well laid down procedure for handling staff grievances through committee systems viz. Area grievance redressal forum (AGREF), Central grievances redressal forum (CENGREF). Apart from these, there is a system of ACCESS, under which employees can directly meet the Chief Executive on a scheduled day to present their grievances and to seek on-the-spot solution thereof. The redressal of staff grievances are coordinated by the zonal personnel executives, who send a monthly progress report on the number of employees grievances received and redressed etc. for compilation, computerization and monitoring. The entire system of redressal of grievances is monitored centrally by personnel in the coordination section. Besides, CEO Direct, a communication forum between a group employees and CMD, has been introduced on 25.5.2003. Around 45 employees participate in each session and so far, 345 employees have been covered under 9 sessions.The information regarding the public and staff grievances for the period 1.4.2003 to 30.9.2003 are furnished as under:Status of Public Grievances for the period 1.4.2003 to 30.9.2003

S. No Name of the Organization / PSU Grievance s outstandin g as on 1.4.2003 No. of Grievances received during the period No. of cases disposed off during the period No. of cases pending as on 30.9.2003 1. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Visakhaptanm Steel Plant) Nil Nil Nil Nil Status of Staff Grievances for the period 1.4.2003 to 30.9.2003 S. No. Name of the

Organization / PSU Grievances outstanding as on 1.4.2003 No. of Grievances received during the period No. of cases disposed off during the period No. of cases pending as on 30.9.200 3 1. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Visakhaptanm Steel Plant) 5 177 182 Nil NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (NMDC) The Grievance Redressal Machinery in NMDC is headed by an Executive Director in the Head Office and by Head of Projects in each of the 4 production projects. The machinery is working satisfactorily. However, the volume of grievances handled is very low, as such, computerization has not been done. Public

dealing in the organisation being minimal, no time norms etc. have been fixed. However, as and when any Public grievance (including in the press) is received, the same is promptly attended to. Status of Public Grievances / Staff Grievances for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 S. No. Name of Organization / PSU Grievances outstanding as on 1.4.2003 No. of Grievances received during the period No. of cases disposed of No. of cases pending as on 31.3.2004 1 NMDC (Public Grievances) 1 -- -- 1 2 NMDC (Staff Grievances

1 4 -- 5KUDREMUKH IRON ORE COMPANY LIMITED (KIOCL) KIOCL has framed a well defined Grievance Procedure evolved under the code of Discipline in March 1977 which covers all the employees, both Executives and Nonexecutives. Ever since the introduction, the scheme has been working satisfactorily without any complaint from any corner, either from the Recognised union or Officers Association. In view of the limited number of employees in the organisation, the Grievances are easily identified and redressed at the grass root level itself. Whenever any Public Grievances are received by the Company in writing, the same are acknowledged promptly. The Grievances so received are carefully examined in detail and analysed for taking quick and prompt action. Two Directors and two General Managers are designated as Directors of Grievances for redressal of the Public/Staff Grievances. Status of staff grievances during 2003 -2004 Sl. No Name of the Organisation Grievances outstanding as on 01-04-2003 No of Grievances received during the period No of cases disposed of No of cases pending as

on 31-032004 1 Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited 1 39 40 Nil Status of public grievances during 2003-2004 Sl. No Name of the Organisation Grievances outstanding as on 01-04-2003 No of Grievances received during the period No of cases disposed of No of cases pending as on 31-032004 1 Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited 2781 MANGANESE ORE INDIA LIMITED (MOIL) Employees grievances - MOIL has its own Grievance Redressal procedure

for Executives as well as Non-Executive employees. The grievances of employees are accordingly dealt with as per Rules.The redressal of grievance machinery in MOIL consists of one Grievance Officer nominated for the purpose at each unit. The Grievance Officer nominated at the Head Office co-ordinates with the Grievance Officers at the units for their effective performance. Public Grievances All Grievance Officials have been apprised of the manner in which the public grievances received at this end are to be disposed. The system adopted for dealing with the grievances of the public was constituted on the basis of instructions received from various authorities in the past. METAL SCRAP TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED (MSTC) A Public Grievance Cell has been constituted to deal with any grievance of any member of the Public as well as the employees. Constitution of this Cell has been widely circulated to all the offices of MSTC. Grievances received are examined by the Cell in consultation with the HOD concerned and sometimes with the staff union, if the grievance is of a collective nature. MSTC being a very small organisation having maximum 20 to 30 staff in each department/office, the staff has easy access to the HODs and even CMD. Status of Public/staff grievances for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 Name of the organisation / PSU Grievances outstanding on 1.4.2003 No. of grievances received during

the period No. of cases disposed of No.of cases pending as on 31.3.04 MSTC LIMITED 5 NIL 1 4 * STAFF GRIEVANCES MSTC LIMITED 2 NIL 2 NIL * From employees - 1 From outsiders - 3 FERRO SCRAP NIGAM LIMITED (FSNL) FSNL is engaged in rendering specialised services to the integrated steel plants in scrap recovery & processing operations. Hence, no direct public dealings are made by the Company. However, in case any public grievance is received, the same is redressed without any delay.For redressal of Staff grievances, Grievance Redressal Scheme exists under which the grievances are redressed to the entire satisfaction of the individual concerned, in a time-bound schedule. Status of Public/Staff Grievances for the period 1/4/2003 to 31/3/2004 Name of Organisation/PSU Grievances Outstanding as on 1.4.2003 No. of Grievance received during the period No. of cases disposed off No. of

cases pending PUBLIC GRIEVANCES Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited NIL Nil N.A NIL STAFF GRIEVANCES Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited 2 2 2 2 MECON LIMITED (A) Public Grievances Representatives of the public in general have access to meeting the concerned officials of the Department as also the designated officials on matters relating to Public Grievances. B) Employees Grievances In MECON we have a three-tier grievance procedure for redressal of employees grievances. In addition, there is a Committee constituted with a senior Lady Engineer as its Chairman to look into the grievances or complaints of women employees in the company. Further, there is a separate cell for redressal of grievances of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Castes and Backward Class Employees. BHARAT REFRACTORIES LIMITED (BRL) The company has introduced a three tier grievance handling machinery for its employees. The grievances are redressed under the procedure laid down therein. The management has been making efforts to dispose off all grievances procedurally with a view to ensure justice and satisfaction to the employees..

Table of Contents 1. Purpose ..................................................................................... 2 2. Policy Statement ....................................................................... 2

2.1 Application of Policy ........................................................................................... 2 2.2 Confidentiality of Process/Participation of NonParties ...................................... 2 2.3 Information and Proof Accepted .......................................................................... 2 2.4 Failure to Cooperate/Submission of Misleading or False Information ................ 2 2.5 Fiduciary Responsibility and Retention of Legal Rights ..................................... 3 3. Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy ................................ 3 3.1 Submission of Grievance Matter .......................................................................... 3 3.1.1 Initial Review ............................................................................................ 3 3.1.2 Resolution Officer ..................................................................................... 4 3.1.3 Resolution Officer Review and Actions .................................................... 4 3.1.4 Specific Expertise Panel ............................................................................ 5 3.1.5 Finality of Resolution ................................................................................ 5 3.2 Mediation/Informal Resolution ............................................................................ 5 3.3 Resolution Hearings ............................................................................................. 6 4. Policy Distribution ...................................................................... 7 5. Related Documents ................................................................... 8 6. Revision History ........................................................................ 8 7. Glossary .................................................................................... 8Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy Level: 2 Effective Date: March 2000 Responsibility of: VP & General Counsel 2010 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/11/2010: Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to PMI intranet for the

latest version. 2 of 9 1. Purpose To provide a process where Project Management Institute (PMI) receives, reviews, and resolves all formal complaint, dispute, and grievance matters for PMI members, volunteers, components or customers. 2. Policy Statement This policy is the sole and exclusive means by which any PMI member, volunteer, component or customer may escalate and submit a formal organizational or policy complaint, objection, dispute, grievance, disagreement, or similar matter (grievance matter) for review and resolution. All PMI members accept this policy as the appropriate and binding organizational system for the fair, equitable, orderly, and efficient consideration and settlement of such matters, without resort to governmental, court, or other outside procedures. 2.1 Application of Policy This policy will apply to any grievance matter initiated by PMI members; the PMI Board of Directors and Officers; PMI components; PMI executive management and staff; PMI Committee members; and PMI volunteers and representatives (Parties) with respect to organizational or policy matters which involve PMI, as a corporate body, or any PMI program, product or service. PMI may also use this process in resolving grievances it may have with one or more of the above listed entities or individuals. 2.2 Confidentiality of Process/Participation of Non-Parties

All non-final resolutions, proceedings, and materials related to this policy are confidential and private, and will be maintained securely by PMI and the Parties. Other than the Parties involved, no observers or other persons are permitted to participate in the processes established by this policy without the permission of the Chief Executive Officer or other designated PMI authority, and the denial of such permission is not subject to further review or appeal. 2.3 Information and Proof Accepted The designated PMI authority will receive and consider all information appearing to be relevant to the grievance matter, including any information which may be helpful to a complete understanding of the issues involved. Objections relating to the relevance of information and other evidence issues will be decided by the PMI designated Resolution Officer and these decisions are not subject to further review or appeal. 2.4 Failure to Cooperate/Submission of Misleading or False Information Any Party including a Grievant who is not associated with PMI, must cooperate with the designated PMI authority with respect to the resolution of the grievance matter resolution process. Failure to cooperate may result in the imposition of corrective actions or sanctions by PMI, including the denial or acceptance of a grievance, or other appropriate Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy Level: 2 Effective Date: March 2000 Responsibility of: VP & General Counsel 2010 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/11/2010: Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to PMI intranet for the latest version.

3 of 9 corrective actions. Similarly, any Party who submits false or misleading information to PMI with respect to the resolution of a grievance may be subject to appropriate corrective action or sanction. 2.5 Fiduciary Responsibility and Retention of Legal Rights Notwithstanding any provision of this, or any other, policy to the contrary, consistent with legal fiduciary responsibilities and the PMI governing documents, PMI retains all rights and privileges to: seek any available legal remedies and relief on behalf of itself and authorized representatives; and defend itself and authorized representatives to the fullest extent permitted by law. 3. Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy 3.1 Submission of Grievance Matter All grievance matters must be submitted to the PMI Chief Executive Officer or his/her designee, and explicitly identified by the Grievant as a formal complaint, dispute, or grievance, submitted for treatment under this policy. 3.1.1 Initial Review Chief Executive Officer Determination of Nature of Complaint: The President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) shall review the matter and make a determination as to the nature of matter and inform the complainant. a) Matters of an Operational Nature: shall generally be defined as those issues related to the day-to-day management and conduct of Institute business including

operational policies and program, product and service offerings of the Institute. b) Matters of a Strategic Nature: shall generally be defined as those issues related to the strategic direction of the organization including Board policy directives, Board Governance Policies and any items reserved to the Board for decision by the PMI By-laws, Board Policies or the Rules of the Board. c) Mixed Matters: to the extent that the complaint contains matters which are covered by subsections (a) and (b), the complaint shall be bifurcated and each matter shall be handled by the process relevant to that matter, as contained in this policy. Appeal Initial Determination of the Nature of the Matter: To the extent that a Party disputes the determination with respect to the nature of the complaint and therefore the channel for appointing a Resolution Officer, the Party must, by written letter, appeal that decision to the PMI Chair within ten (10) days of being notified of that determination. The notice from the CEO advising the Parties of the determination of the nature of the complaint category shall include an advisement to the Party of his/her right to seek a timely appeal determination from the Chair. Failure to submit the issue to the Chair Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy Level: 2 Effective Date: March 2000 Responsibility of: VP & General Counsel 2010 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/11/2010: Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to PMI intranet for the latest version. 4 of 9 within ten (10) days will constitute a waiver of that issue by the Party. 3.1.2 Resolution Officer Operational PMI HQ Matters: The Chief Executive Officer, or his/her appointed

designee, shall serve as Resolution Officer for matters described in Section 3.1 a), above. In the event of a possible conflict of interest, the nature of the complaint or other appropriate basis for referral, the Chief Executive Officer may refer the matter to the Associate Executive Director, appropriate Manager, the PMI Chair, or another appropriate designee appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, for initial review and resolution. Strategic Board Matters: All matters which are described in Section 3.1 b), above, shall be referred, by the Chief Executive Officer, to the PMI Chair who shall serve as Resolution Officer. In the event of a possible conflict of interest, the nature of the complaint or other appropriate basis for referral, the Chair may refer the matter to another Officer of the Board, one or more members of the Board or another appropriate designee appointed by the Chair for initial review and resolution. Grievance Matters pertaining to the Chief Executive Officer. The PMI Board of Directors is solely responsible for all matters concerning the Chief Executive Officer. By PMI Board Policy, the Chief Executive Officer is the only employee of the PMI Board, accountable to the full PMI Board. Any grievance matter or other complaint received concerning the Chief Executive Officer shall be treated as a confidential personnel matter, and immediately forwarded to the PMI Chair, as Resolution Officer for the Board of Directors, for handling in the appropriate process, or as required by employment

contract, PMI governing documents and applicable law. The full Board of Directors, the Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel shall be kept informed, on a confidential basis, of all such matters, so that the full and complete interests of the corporation are represented and maintained and that they may cooperate with the Chair to ensure that the Chair has adequate staff or other assistance in the process. To the extent that any Resolution Officer appointed by the Chief Executive Officer or the Chair should discover during the course of the proceedings that he/she has a conflict of interest, the Resolution Officer shall immediately contact the Chief Executive Officer or Chair, as applicable, and to advise of the conflict. The Chief Executive Officer or Chair shall then appoint a new Resolution Officer to proceed with the Grievance. 3.1.3 Resolution Officer Review and Actions The Resolution Officer shall inform the individual, group, or organization that is the subject of the grievance of the complaint and will thereafter conduct a preliminary review of the grievance matter, including the collection and consideration of all relevant communications and other materials submitted by the Parties or others in possession of Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy Level: 2 Effective Date: March 2000 Responsibility of: VP & General Counsel 2010 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/11/2010: Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to PMI intranet for the latest version.

5 of 9 material information. Following such review, the Resolution Officer may take any of the following actions: 1. Issue an informal resolution to the matter; 2. Request or direct that one or more of the Parties, or others in possession of material information, provide relevant documents, data, or information necessary to consider and resolve the grievance matter. 3. Issue a formal resolution to the matter, which will include a written, initial decision and resolution, and which may include any appropriate corrective or remedial action(s) and/or disciplinary sanction(s). Among other formal resolution conclusions, the Resolution Officer may: affirm the grievance in whole or in part; or, deny and dismiss the grievance in whole or in part; 4. Submit the complaint to the respondent for a reply within such timeframe as the Resolution Officer deems appropriate; 5. Dismiss the complaint when the Resolution Officer determines that (1) the complaint fails to state a claim that is supported by the facts alleged or (2) that the complaint challenges only the reasonableness of an action which was in the discretion of the respondent to take and the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to show a gross abuse of that discretion; 6. Refer the matter to the PMI Chair or another Resolution Officer for review, further referral, and/or resolution; or, 7. Require that the Parties involved submit to informal mediation of the grievance as authorized by section b, below; 3.1.4 Specific Expertise Panel Where the allegations of the complaint involve factual or legal issues which the Chief Executive Officer or other Resolution Officer determines that require specific expertise beyond that of the Resolution Officer, he/she may refer the grievance to a panel of

arbitrators for binding arbitration, consisting of one or more individuals, possessing the needed expertise to act as the Resolution Officer(s). In the case of such a referral, the Parties shall bear the cost of the arbitration as the arbitrator(s) may determine. 3.1.5 Finality of Resolution All informal and formal resolutions of the grievance matter by a Resolution Officer will be final and not appealable. 3.2 Mediation/Informal Resolution a) Matters Appropriate for Mediation: Each Resolution Officer is authorized to determine if a grievance matter is appropriate for informal mediation between the Parties, based on the facts and circumstances related to the matter. Such mediation will be intended to assist the Parties in reaching a fair, informal, mutually acceptable settlement of the issues and concerns presented without resort to any formal process. Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy Level: 2 Effective Date: March 2000 Responsibility of: VP & General Counsel 2010 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/11/2010: Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to PMI intranet for the latest version. 6 of 9 b) Mediator Authorities/Designation of Mediator(s): Once a matter is determined to be appropriate for mediation under this policy, the Resolution Officer may begin and conclude the necessary meetings, discussions, and negotiations appropriate to reaching a mediated settlement of the matter. In the alternative, and in consultation with the Parties, the Resolution Officer may appoint one or more designated mediators to supervise and oversee the mediation process consistent with these provisions. c) Successful Mediation: In the event that the Parties reach a successful, mediated resolution of the grievance matter, the designated mediator will prepare a report

identifying the resolution terms, and forward the report to the Parties for approval, and the Chief Executive Officer for receipt. d) Unsuccessful Mediation: In the event that the Parties are unable to reach a successful, mediated resolution of the grievance matter, the resolution officer will accept the matter for resolution, consistent with Section 3.2 a), above, and other controlling terms of this policy. 3.3 Resolution Hearings Hearing Authorizations: A Party may request that a grievance matter review and resolution include an informal, in-person or telephone hearing. Such request must include a statement of the reasons that the Party believes support the use of a hearing process. The decision to grant or deny a hearing request is solely within the discretion of the Resolution Officer to grant or deny as he/she deems it appropriate. Hearing Process: Any hearing authorized or convened under this policy will be informal, and designed to collect and weigh the available, relevant information and proof. The Resolution Officer shall conduct the hearing, and will have full authority and responsibility to convene, preside over, continue and conclude the hearing in a fair, objective, and efficient manner. The decisions of the Resolution Officer with respect to the hearing, including the acceptance or rejection of information submitted, will not be subject to appeal. Hearing Schedule and Location: Each hearing convened under this policy will be scheduled by the Resolution Officer in consultation with the Parties. Each hearing will be held by telephone, or at a site determined by the Resolution Officer.

Hearing Notice and Attendance: The Resolution Officer will schedule the hearing and notify the Parties in writing. Any hearing may proceed to a conclusion whether or not the Parties are present. Each Party will be given the option to attend the hearing in person and will be required to indicate the following at least thirty (30) days before the hearing: 1. Whether the Party intends to appear at, and participate in, the hearing in person; 2. Whether the Party intends to participate in the hearing via telephone, and if so, the telephone numbers where the Party is to be reached during the hearing; Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy Level: 2 Effective Date: March 2000 Responsibility of: VP & General Counsel 2010 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/11/2010: Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to PMI intranet for the latest version. 7 of 9 3. Whether the Party intends to appear at the hearing with an attorney or other representative, and if so, the name, address and telephone number of such attorney or representative; 4. Whether the Party intends to present witnesses at the hearing; and if so, the name, address and telephone number of each witness and a brief summary of the content of proposed witness testimony; and 5. Whether the Party intends to present or offer any documentary information or other written proof during the course of the hearing. If such information is offered, the Party must provide a copy of each document and a brief description of the relevance of the material. Responsibilities and Rights of the Parties: In addition to other responsibilities and rights, the Parties may do, or be required to do, the following:

1. Attend the hearing and be present during the testimony of all witnesses; 2. Present witnesses, written information and argument on their behalf; 3. Review or inspect all oral or written information presented in the case; and 4. Comply with all lawful requirements or directives issued by the responsible Resolution Officer consistent with the terms of this policy. Witnesses: All witnesses will be excluded from the hearing except during their presentation of information. However, a Party may request that a witness remain in the hearing room during all or part of the hearing. The Resolution Officer will rule on any request and the ruling will not be subject to appeal. Hearing Expenses: Parties will be responsible for their own expenses associated with the hearing, including costs associated with transportation, witnesses, legal counsel, and the like unless otherwise stated in these procedures, PMI will bear all general hearing expenses and other grievance matter costs, including costs associated with the participation of the Resolution Officer and staff or individuals assisting the Resolution Officer. Closing of the Hearing Record: The record of each hearing will be closed following the conclusion of the hearing, unless otherwise directed by the Resolution Officers. Any Party may request that the record remain open for thirty (30) days for the purpose of receiving additional documentary information and or similar materials. The Resolution Officer authority may deny requests to keep the hearing record open without appeal. 4. Policy Distribution

Internal for Action: President and Chief Executive Officer Vice President and General Counsel All PMI staff who participate in complaint, dispute, and grievance policy process Complaint, Dispute, and Grievance Policy Level: 2 Effective Date: March 2000 Responsibility of: VP & General Counsel 2010 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/11/2010: Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to PMI intranet for the latest version. 8 of 9 Internal for Information and Awareness: All other PMI staff External: Stakeholders are bound to Rule of the Board 6.2, PMI Outreach Policy 5. Related Documents Related procedures, forms, and other support documents enforce, maintain, and verify policy compliance. These procedures and forms support this policy: Document Name Document Type (Procedure, Form, User Guide, etc.) PMI Rules of the Board, Chapter 9: Member, Customers, and Other Organizational Complaints/Grievances Rule of the Board 6. Revision History Changes to this policy are made as necessary under the direction of the preparers and approvers. The change log describes new topics and other changes. Action (Creation, Revision, Review)

Effective Date Changes/Approvals Creation March 2000 Revision August 2002 Revision January 2010 Updated to new template 7. Glossary This policy uses the following specific terms, acronyms, and abbreviations: Term Definition Parties The individual, group, or organization initiating a grievance matter will be identified as the grievant(s). The individual, group, or organization that is the subject of the grievance will be identified as the respondent(s). Complaint, Dispute, and Grievanc

Committee on Privilege & Tenure: Grievance Guidelines & ProceduresTable of Contents Grievance Cases 1 General Information and Pre-Hearing Procedures 1 Flowchart: Pre-Hearing, Hearing and Post-Hearing Procedures in Grievance Cases 3 Disciplinary Cases 7 General Information and Pre-Hearing Procedures 7 Timeline 9 Flowchart: Pre-Hearing, Formal Hearing, and Post-Hearing Procedures in Disciplinary Cases 10 Related Grievance and Disciplinary Cases 14 General Information and Pre-Hearing Procedures 14 Early Termination Cases 15 General Information and Pre-Hearing Procedures 15 Flow Chart -- Pre-Hearing and Hearing Procedures in Early Termination Cases 17

Best Practices 19 P&T Committee Members 19 UCSF Committee on Privilege and Tenure FAQs 20 Chart: Grievance vs. Disciplinary vs. Early Termination 24 P&T Inquiry Form 25 Resource Materials 26 Resource Contact List 26 Advisory Panel 27 Condentiality and Liability Issues for Members of P&T 28 General Background and Best Practices for Advisory Panel Members 29Reference 31 Bylaws 31 Academic Personnel Manual Provisions 40 APM 015 40 APM 016 53 APM 140 60 Standing Orders of the Regents 72 SOR 100.1 72 SOR 100.2 73 SOR 100.3 74 SOR 100.4 75 SOR 100.5 84 SOR 100.6 85 SOR 103.2 86 SOR 103.9 87 SOR 103.10 88 SOR 105.1 89 Legislative Rulings 90 LR 3.73 90 LR 3.93A 91 LR 3.93B 92

LR 4.94 93 LR 12.80 94 UCSF Code of Conduct 96Grievance Cases General Information and Pre-hearing Procedures General Information Grievance cases are governed by Senate Bylaw (SBL) 335 and Divisional Bylaw (DBL) 141 Grievance cases are initiated by Senate members [SBL 335(A)(1)] Denitions Grievance: A complaint that a Senate members rights or privileges have been violated. Prima Facie Case: a prima facie case shall be deemed established if the P&T Committee concludes that the allegations as stated in the written grievance, if true, would constitute a violation of the faculty members rights and privileges. [SBL 335(B)(2)] Personnel Issues Note: In cases of personnel review involving tenure, promotion or reappointment, a grievance can only be based on allegations that: (a) the procedures were not in consonance with the applicable rules and requirements of the University of any of its Divisions; or (b) the challenged decision was reached on the basis of impermissible criteria, including, but not limited to, race, sex or political conviction. [SBL 335(A)(2)] Preliminary Procedures

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. Before considering the grievance, the P&T Committee can, at its discretion, require the grievant to exhaust all appropriate administrative avenues of redress, including, but not limited to, presenting the grievance along with a request for an administrative remedy to the department chair, dean or other appropriate academic administrator who has authority to investigate and offer a remedy. [SBL 335(A)(1)] Early Resolution Efforts Informal Negotiations. Any party may attempt to resolve the grievance informally through negotiations. These negotiations may proceed with the assistance of impartial third parties, including one or more members of the Committee. A negotiated resolution is permissible and appropriate at any stage of the grievance procedures. If a negotiated resolution is reached after a written grievance is led, the P&T Committee should be given notice that the matter has been resolved. [SBL 335(C)(1)] Mediation. The grievance may also be resolved through mediation in cases where mediation is acceptable to the administration and the grievant. With the consent of the administration and the grievant, the P&T Committee may assist in the selection of an appropriate mediator. Other relevant parties, including members of the Committee, may participate in the mediation. [SBL 335(C)(2)] Time Limitation UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 1No grievance may be considered by the P&T Committee if more than three years have passed between the time the

grievant knew or should have known about the violation of his/her rights and privileges and the resulting injury there from, and the ling of a grievance with the Committee. [SBL 335(B)(6)] Pre-Hearing Procedures 1. P&T receives the written grievance. 2. P&T reviews the grievance to see if more than 3 years has passed between the time the grievant knew or should have known about the violation of his/her rights and privileges and the resulting injury and the ling of the grievance. Note: If more than 3 years has passed, P&T cannot consider the grievance. (SBL 335.B.6) 3. If the grievance was led within the 3-year period, and either the grievant has already exhausted all available administrative remedies, or P&T does not deem this to be necessary, then P&T reviews the written grievance only and determines whether the grievant has made out a prima facie case. (SBL 335.B.2) a) If the grievant has not made out a prima facie case, P&T writes the grievant a letter stating the reasons for this conclusion. (SBL 335.B.4) 4. If the grievant has made out a prima facie case, P&T may conduct a preliminary review of the evidence to determine if there is sufcient reason to believe that a right or privilege of the grievant may have been violated. a) During the preliminary review, P&T must give the grievant an opportunity to discuss his/her allegations with the Committee, either orally or in writing. b) If either party appropriately shows a need, or on its own initiative, P&T can request les and documents from the administration. c) At the preliminary review stage, P&T may give notice of the grievance to the administrator with authority to offer a remedy, and offer the administrator an opportunity to respond.

d) During the preliminary review stage, P&T may also ask other persons involved in the events giving rise to the grievance to appear before P&T or to provide P&T with information. (SBL 335.B.3) 5. If P&T determines that after the preliminary review, there is not sufcient reason to believe that the grievants rights and privileges may have been violated, P&T writes the grievant a letter, stating the reasons for this conclusion. (SBL 335.B.4) 6. If P&T determines that the grievant has made out a prima facie case of a violation of a right or privilege and that there is sufcient reason to believe that the grievants rights and privileges may have been violated: a) P&T must advise the Chancellors designee of the grievance and the prima facie determination b) P&T must also make an attempt to promote a resolution of the dispute. (SBL 335.B.5) 7. If no resolution can be reached, P&T must conduct a formal hearing. (SBL 335.B.5) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 2Flowchart: Pre-Hearing, Hearing, and Post-Hearing Procedures in Grievance Cases P&T Committee reviews grievance to see if more than 3 years has passed since the grievant knew or should have known of the violation of rights/privileges and resulting harm. (SBL 335.B.6) If grievance led within 3 years, P&T may require grievant to rst exhaust all appropriate administrative avenues of redress. If this has occurred, or if P&T does not require it, P&T reviews written grievance only to see if prima facie

case was made. (SBL 335.B.2) If prima facie case is not shown, P&T writes member, stating reasons for this conclusion. (SBL 335.B.4) If prima facie case is shown, P&T may conduct preliminary review of the evidence to determine if there is sufcient reason to believe that a right or privilege was violated. (SBL 335.B.3) If more than 3 years has passed, P&T cannot consider the grievance. (SBL 335.B.6) INFORMAL RESOLUTION IS ENCOURAGED AT ANY STAGE Any party may try to resolve the grievance informally through negotiations. Negotiations may proceed with the help of impartial third parties, including one or more Committee members. A negotiated resolution is permissible and appropriate at any stage of the grievance proceedings. If a negotiated resolution is reached after a written grievance is led, the P&T Committee should be given notice that the matter has been resolved. (SBL 335.C.1) The grievance may be resolved through mediation when mediation is acceptable to the grievant and the administration. When all parties consent, the P&T Committee may help in selecting an appropriate mediator.

Other relevant parties, including Committee members, may participate in the mediation. (SBL 335.C.2) Written grievance from a Senate Member is received. (SBL 335.A.1) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 3PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN GRIEVANCE CASES If, after nding a prima facie case was made, P&T decides to conduct a preliminary review of the evidence: ! During the preliminary review, P&T must give grievant the opportunity to discuss his/her allegations with the Committee, either orally or in writing. ! If either party shows an appropriate need, or on its own initiative, P&T Committee may ask for les and documents from the administration, including the grievants personnel les and condential documents therein. Condential documents shall remain condential within the Committee unless disclosure is required by law. ! P&T may give notice of the grievance to the administrator with authority to offer a remedy, and offer the administrator an opportunity to respond. ! P&T may ask other persons involved in the events giving rise to the grievance, including the department chair, to appear before P&T or to provide P&T with information. (SBL 335.B.3) If P&T determines that after the preliminary review, there is not sufcient reason to believe that the grievants rights and privileges may have been violated, P&T writes grievant, stating reasons for this conclusion. (SBL 335.B.4) If P&T determines that the grievant has made out a prima facie case of a violation of a right or privilege and that there is sufcient reason to believe the grievants rights/privileges may have been violated: ! P&T must advise the Chancellors designee of the

grievance and the prima facie determination ! P&T must also attempt to promote a resolution of the controversy. If resolution efforts fail, P&T must conduct a formal hearing. (SBL 335.B.5) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 4FORMAL HEARING PROCEDURES IN GRIEVANCE CASES The Hearing Committee The P&T Committee shall appoint a Hearing Committee for each grievance case that is not resolved through a negotiation or mediation. ! The Hearing Committee should consist of at least 3 Division members, at least 2 of whom must be P&T Committee members. ! One of the P&T Committee members on the Hearing Committee shall chair the Hearing Committee. ! No member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of any of the parties may be appointed to the Hearing Committee. ! Hearing Committee members must disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case, and must recuse themselves as appropriate. ! A quorum for the conduct of the hearing shall be at least half but not less than 3 members of the hearing Committee, including at least 1 member of the P&T Committee. (SBL 335.D.1) Pre-Hearing Conference Before the hearing, the Hearing Committee chair shall schedule a conference with the parties and/or their representatives to: ! Determine facts about which there is no dispute. At the hearing, these facts may be established by stipulation. ! Dene the issues to be decided by the Hearing Committee.

! Set a time for both sides to exchange a list of witnesses and copies of exhibits to be presented at the hearing. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to limit each party to those witnesses whose names were disclosed to the other party before the hearing and to otherwise limit evidence to that which is relevant to the issues before the Hearing Committee. ! Specify whether pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs will be submitted by the parties, and the deadlines for those briefs. ! Attain agreement about whether any person other than the Chancellor, the Chancellors designee, the grievant, and their representatives may be present during all or any part of the hearing. To preserve condentiality, persons whose presence is not essential to a determination of the facts shall, as a general rule, be excluded from the hearing. (SBL 335.D.2.a-e) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 5RULES RELATING TO FORMAL HEARINGS IN GRIEVANCE CASES 1. The Chancellors designee, the grievant and/or their representatives are entitled to be present at all sessions of the Hearing Committee when evidence is being received. 2. Each party has the right to be represented by counsel. 3. Each party has the right to present its case by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for full and true disclosure of the facts. 4. The hearing does not have to be conducted according to the technical legal rules relating to evidence and witnesses.

5. The Hearing Committee may, upon an appropriate showing of need by any party, or on its own initiative, request les and documents under the control of the administration. All condential information introduced into evidence, including the identity of condential sources of personnel evaluations, shall remain so within the Hearing Committee. 6. The Hearing Committee may call witnesses or make evidentiary requests on its own volition. 7. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to require that all witnesses afrm the veracity of their testimony. 8. No evidence other than that presented at the hearing shall be considered by the Hearing committee or have weight in the proceedings, except that the Hearing Committee may take notice of any judicially noticeable facts that are commonly known. Parties present at the hearing shall be informed of matters thus noticed, and each party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Hearing Committees notice of such matters. 9. The P&T Committee may, at its discretion, request the appointment of a qualied person or persons, designated by the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege & Tenure, to provide legal advice and/or to assist in the organization and conduct of the hearing. 10. At the hearing the grievant bears the burden of proving the validity of the grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. 11. The hearing shall be recorded. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to use a certied court reporter (whose cost is borne by the administration) for this purpose, and the parties and their representatives shall have the right to a copy of the recording or transcript. The requesting party bears the cost of the copy.

POST-HEARING PROCEDURES IN GRIEVANCE CASES ! At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee shall promptly make its nding of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation, and forward these to the parties in the case, the Chancellor, the Chair of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure. ! The ndings, conclusions, recommendation, and record of the proceedings shall be condential to the extent allowed by law and UC policy. The Hearing Committee may, however, and with the consent of the grievant, authorize release of the ndings, conclusions, and recommendations to other individuals and entities, to the extent allowed by law. ! The Hearing Committee may reconsider a case if either party presents, within a reasonable time after the decision, newly discovered facts or circumstances that might signicantly affect the previous decision and that were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the hearing. (SBL 335.D) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 6Disciplinary Cases General Information and Pre-Hearing Procedures General Information Disciplinary cases are governed by Senate By-Law (SBL) 336 and Divisional ByLaw (DBL) 141. Disciplinary cases are initiated by the appropriate Chancellor or Chancellors designee against a Senate member or other faculty members who have a right to a hearing before a Senate committee under Standing Order of the

Regents (SOR) 103.9 or 103.10, once probable cause has been established. Procedures regarding the establishment of probable cause are determined by Academic Personnel Manual (APM) 015 and 016 and Divisional policies. [SBL 336(B)(1)] Charges shall be in writing. Charges shall contain notice of proposed disciplinary action and a full statement of the facts underlying the charges. [SBL 336(B)(1)] Extensions of Time Generally, extensions of the deadlines for various procedures may be granted, within the discretion of the Chair of the P&T Committee. Some procedures have specic requirements in order for extensions to be granted, such as an extension for the member to submit his/her answer to the charges, which requires a written application. [See, e.g., SBL 336(B)(2); 336(B)(3)] Early Resolution Efforts Informal Negotiations. The Chancellor or Chancellors designee and the accused faculty member may attempt to resolve the disciplinary charges informally through negotiations. Any party may attempt to resolve the grievance informally through negotiations. If desired, these negotiations may proceed with the assistance of impartial third parties, including one or more members of the Committee. If a negotiated resolution is reached after written charges are led, the P&T Committee should be given notice that the matter has been resolved. [SBL 336(C)(1)] Mediation. The disciplinary charges may be resolved through mediation in cases where mediation is acceptable to the administration and the accused member. With the consent of the administration and the accused, the

P&T Committee may assist in the selection of an appropriate mediator. Other relevant parties, including members of the Committee, may participate in the mediation. [SBL 336(C)(2)] Consultation. Once charges have been led with the P&T Committee, the Committee Chair should request that the Chancellor or Chancellors designee consult with the Committee or its chair before the completion of any early resolution. [SBL 336(C)(3)] Time Limitation No disciplinary action may commence if more than 3 years have passed between the time when the Chancellor or Chancellors designee knew or should have known about all the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct, and the delivery of the notice of proposed disciplinary action. [SBL 336(B)(4)] Pre-Hearing Procedures 1. P&T receives the written charges from the administration. Note: If more than 3 years has passed between the time the Chancellor or Chancellors designee knew or should have known about the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct, and the delivery of the notice of the proposed disciplinary action, no disciplinary action may commence. [SBL 336(B)(4)] 2. Upon receiving the charges, the P&T Chair must promptly deliver a copy of the charges to the accused faculty member or send it by registered mail to the accuseds last known place of residence. [SBL 336(B)(1)] UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 73. The accused member has 21 calendar days after receipt of the charges to le a written answer with P&T. P&T shall provide a copy of the answer to the Chancellor or Chancellors designee. If the accused submits a written request

for an extension of time, the P&T Chair may grant a reasonable extension of time for ling an answer. [SBL 336(B)(2)] 4. P&T shall consider the matter within 21 days after receipt of an answer (or, if no answer is received, after the deadline for receipt of an answer). P&T shall evaluate the case and establish time frames for all subsequent procedures. P&T may refer the case to mediation [SBL 336(C)] or appoint a Hearing Committee [SBL 336(D)(2)] Generally, a pre-hearing conference shall be scheduled within 30 calendar days of appointing the Hearing Committee. Generally, the hearing shall be scheduled within 90 calendar days of appointing the Hearing Committee. The accused shall be given, either personally or by registered mail, at least 10 calendar days notice of the time and place of the hearing. The Chancellor, Chancellors designee, or P&T Chair may for good reason grant an extension of any of these time limits. [SBL 336(B)(3)] 5. The Chancellor or Chancellors designee and the accused may attempt to resolve the disciplinary charges informally through negotiations. These negotiations may proceed with the assistance of impartial third parties, including one or more P&T members. A negotiated resolution is permissible and appropriate at any stage of these proceedings.

Note: If a negotiated resolution is reached after written charges are led, P&T should be given notice that the matter has been resolved. [SBL 336(C)(1)] 6. The disciplinary charges may also be resolved through mediation in cases where such mediation is acceptable to the administration and the accused. With the consent of the administration and the accused, P&T may assist in selecting an appropriate mediator. Other relevant parties, including P&T members, may participate in the mediation. [SBL 336(C)(2)] 7. Once charges have been led with P&T, the P&T Chair should request that the Chancellor or Chancellors designee consult with P&T or its Chair before completion of any early resolution. [SBL 336(C)(3)] UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 8Timeline TIME FRAME EVENT P&T Committee receives written charges from the administration. Promptly after P&T receives charges P&T Committee Chair promptly delivers a copy of the charges to the accused faculty member. 21 calendar days after accuseds receipt of charges (or later if extension is granted) Accused member has 21 calendar days after receipt of the charges to provide a written answer to P&T Committee. The Committee must provide a copy of the answer to the Chancellor or

Chancellors designee. ! Upon receipt of a written application, the P&T Committee Chair may grant a reasonable extension of time for the member to le an answer to the charges. Within 21 calendar days after receipt of an answer (or after the due date if no answer received) P&T Committee shall consider the matter within 21 calendar days after receipt of an answer, or if no written answer is received, after the deadline for receipt of an answer. ! The Committee shall evaluate the case and establish time frames for all subsequent procedures. ! The Committee may refer the case to mediation [SBL 336(C)], or it may appoint a Hearing Committee [SBL 336(D)]. ! The Chancellor, Chancellors designee or P&T Committee Chair may for good reason grant an extension of this time limit. Generally, within 30 calendar days after the appointment of a Hearing Committee (or later, if extension is granted) Generally, a pre-hearing conference shall be scheduled within 30 calendar days of the appointment of a Hearing Committee [SBL 336(D)(2)]. ! The Chancellor, Chancellors designee or P&T Committee Chair may for good reason grant an extension of this time limit. Generally, within 90

calendar days after the appointment of a Hearing Committee (or later, if extension is granted) Generally, the hearing shall be scheduled within 90 calendar days of the appointment of a Hearing Committee [SBL 336(D)]. ! The Chancellor, Chancellors designee or P&T Committee Chair may for good reason grant an extension of this time limit. At least 10 calendar days before the hearing The accused member shall be given, either personally or by registered mail, at least 10 calendar days notice of the time and place of the hearing. Prior to the hearing Prior to the formal hearing, the Chair of the Hearing Committee shall schedule a conference with the accused, the Chancellor or Chancellors designee, and/or their representatives to narrow the issues and set a schedule for exchanging witness lists, copies of exhibits, any preor posthearing brieng, and attain agreements about who may be present at the hearing. Promptly after the conclusion of the hearing At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee shall promptly make its ndings of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation,

and forward these to the parties in the case. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 9Flowchart: Pre-Hearing, Formal Hearing, and Post-Hearing Procedures in Disciplinary Cases Pre-Hearing Procedures P&T Committee receives written charges against a Senate member or other faculty member for whom a hearing before P&T Committee is authorized. (SBL 336.A; 336.B.1) Chair of P&T Committee promptly delivers a copy of the charges to the accused faculty member or sends a copy by registered mail to the faculty members last known residence address. (SBL 336.B.1) Accused member submits written answer to the charges to P&T Committee within 21 calendar days from the members receipt of the charges. P&T Committee must give a copy of the answer to the Chancellor or Chancellors designee. (SBL 336.B.2) P&T Chair may give an extension of time to answer the charges if a written application is received. (SBL 336.B.2) P&T Committee considers the matter within 21 calendar days after receiving the answer from the accused member, or, if no answer is received, after the deadline for receipt of the answer. ! P&T Committee shall evaluate the case and establish time frames for all subsequent procedures. ! P&T Committee may refer the case to mediation, or may appoint a Hearing Committee. ! Generally, a pre-hearing conference shall be scheduled within 30 calendar days after appointment of a Hearing Committee.

! Generally, the hearing shall be scheduled within 90 calendar days after appointment of a Hearing Committee. ! The accused member is entitled to receive at least 10 days notice of the time and place of the hearing. ! The above deadlines can be extended by the Chancellor, Chancellors designee or P&T Committee Chair for good reason. (SBL 336.B.3) Informal Resolution is Encouraged at Any Time The Chancellor or Chancellors designee and the accused may try to resolve the disciplinary charges informally through negotiations. Negotiations may proceed with the help of impartial third parties, including one or more Committee members. A negotiated resolution is permissible and appropriate at any stage of the disciplinary procedures. If a negotiated resolution is reached after written charges are led, P&T Committee should be given notice that the matter has been resolved. (SBL 336.C.1) The disciplinary charges may also be resolved through mediation when mediation is acceptable to the accused member and the administration. When all parties consent, P&T Committee may help in selecting an appropriate mediator. Other relevant parties, including Committee members, may participate in the mediation. Once charges have been led with P&T Committee, the Committee chair should ask that the Chancellor or Chancellors designee consult with the Committee or its chair before the completion of any early resolution. (SBL 336.C.2; 336.C.3) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 10Formal Hearing Procedure in Disciplinary Cases The Hearing Committee The P&T Committee shall appoint a Hearing Committee for each disciplinary case that is not resolved through a negotiated resolution or mediation. !

The Hearing committee should consist of at least 3 Division members, at least 2 of whom must be P&T Committee members ! One of the P&T Committee members on the Hearing Committee shall chair the Hearing Committee. ! The Committee may not appoint a member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of any of the parties to the Hearing Committee. ! Hearing Committee members must disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case and must recuse themselves as appropriate. ! A quorum for the conduct of the hearing shall be at least half but not less than 3 members of the Hearing Committee, including at least 1 member of the P&T Committee. (SBL 336.D.1) Pre-Hearing Conference Before the hearing, the Hearing Committee chair shall schedule a conference with all parties and/or their representatives to: ! Determine facts about which there is no dispute. At the hearing, these facts may be established by stipulation. ! Dene the issues to be decided by the Hearing Committee. ! Set a time for both sides to exchange a list of witnesses and copies of exhibits to be presented at the hearing. The

Hearing Committee has the discretion to limit each party to those witnesses whose names were disclosed to the other party before the hearing and to otherwise limit evidence to that which is relevant to the issues before the Hearing Committee. ! Specify whether pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs will be submitted by the parties, as well as the deadlines for those briefs. ! Attain agreement about whether any person other than the Chancellor, the Chancellors designee, the accused, and their representatives may be present during all of part of the hearing. To preserve condentiality, persons whose presence is not essential to a determination of the facts shall, as a general rule, be excluded from the hearing. (SBL 336.D.2a-e) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 11Rules Relating to the Formal Hearings in Disciplinary Cases 1. The Chancellors designee, the accused and/or their representatives are entitled to be present at all sessions of the Hearing Committee when evidence is being received. [SBL 336(D)(3)] 2. Each party has the right to be represented by counsel. [SBL 336(D)(3)] 3. Each party has the right to present its case by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for full and true disclosure of the facts. [SBL 336(D)(3)] 4. The hearing does not have to be conducted according to the technical legal rules relating to evidence and witnesses. [SBL 336(D)(4)] 5. The Hearing Committee may, upon an appropriate showing of need by any party, or on its own initiative, request

les and documents under the control of the administration. All condential information introduced into evidence shall remain so within the Hearing Committee. [SBL 336(D)(4)] 6. The Hearing Committee may call witnesses or make evidentiary requests on its own volition. [SBL 336(D)(4)] 7. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to require that all witnesses afrm the veracity of their testimony. [SBL 336(D)(4)] 8. Prior discipline involving the same accused faculty member may be admitted into evidence if the prior conduct for which the faculty member was disciplined is relevant to the acts alleged in the current disciplinary matter. Under these conditions, prior hearing reports are always admissible. [SBL 336(D) (5)] 9. No evidence other than that presented at the hearing shall be considered by the Hearing committee or have weight in the proceedings, except that the Hearing Committee may take notice of any judicially noticeable facts that are commonly known. Parties present at the hearing shall be informed of matters thus noticed, and each party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Hearing Committees notice of such matters. [SBL 336(D)(6)] 10. The P&T Committee may, at its discretion, request the appointment of a qualied person or persons, designated by the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege & Tenure, to provide legal advice and/or to assist in the organization and conduct of the hearing. [SBL 336(D)(7)] 11. At the hearing the Chancellor or Chancellors designee bears the burden of proving the allegations by clear and

convincing evidence. [SBL 336(D)(8)] The phrase clear and convincing evidence means generally that the Hearing Committee must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the allegations are true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard (requiring that it be more likely than not that a claim is true), but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 12Post-Hearing Procedures in Disciplinary Cases ! At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee shall promptly make its nding of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation, and forward these to the parties in the case, the Chancellor, the Chair of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure. [SBL 336(D)(10)] ! The ndings, conclusions, recommendation, and record of the proceedings shall be condential to the extent allowed by law and UC policy. The Hearing Committee may, however, and with the consent of the accused, authorize release of the ndings, conclusions, and recommendations to other individuals and entities, to the extent allowed by law. [SBL 336(D)(10)] ! The Hearing Committee shall not have power to recommend the imposition of a sanction more severe than that proposed in the notice of proposed disciplinary action. In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend, the Hearing Committee may choose to consider previous charges against

the accused if those charges led to prior sanctions either after a disciplinary hearing or pursuant to a negotiated or mediated resolution. [SBL 336(D)(9)] ! The Hearing Committee may reconsider a case if either party presents, within a reasonable time after the decision, newly discovered facts or circumstances that might signicantly affect the previous decision and that were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the hearing. [SBL 336(D)(11)] UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 13Related Grievance and Disciplinary Cases General Information and Pre-Hearing Procedures General Information Related Grievance and Disciplinary cases are governed by Senate By-Law (SBL) 335 and 336 and Divisional By-Law (DBL) 141 Rules for Grievance Cases Related to Disciplinary Cases There are circumstances in which the same set of facts and allegations lead to both a disciplinary matter and a grievance before P&T. [SBL 335(E)] When a grievance involves the same facts that are the subject of a disciplinary matter, P&T may, at its discretion, hold either matter in abeyance while it proceeds with the other. Alternatively, with the consent of the grievant, the accused in the disciplinary matter, and the Chancellors designee, consider both matters within a single hearing. [SBL 335(E)(1)(a)] Under these circumstances, when a single hearing is held, the Committee shall make separate reports of

ndings, conclusions and recommendations for the grievance and the disciplinary matter. [SBL 335(E)(1)] When a Senate member facing disciplinary charges les a grievance involving the same set of facts and circumstances as the disciplinary matter, P&T has the discretion to consider both matters within a single hearing. (SBL 335.E.1.b) When a Senate member les a grievance which is based on the same facts and incidents involved in a prior disciplinary hearing at which the same Senate members was accused of violating the Code of Conduct, the ndings and conclusions of the prior disciplinary hearing shall be conclusive. (SBL 335.E.2) Rules for Disciplinary Cases Related to Prior Grievance Cases A disciplinary Hearing Committee shall not be bound by the recommendation of another hearing body, including the ndings of P&T in a grievance case involving the same set of incidents. (SBL 336.E) However, the Hearing Committee may accept into evidence the ndings of another hearing body or investigative agency. The weight to be accorded evidence of this nature is at the discretion of the Hearing Committee and should take account of the nature of the other forum. (SBL 336.E) In any case, the accused faculty member must be given full opportunity to challenge the ndings of the other body. (SBL.336.E) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 14Early Termination Cases General Information and Pre-Hearing Procedures

General Information Early termination cases are governed by Senate By-Law (SBL) 337, Divisional By-Law (DBL) 141, and Standing Orders of the Regents (SOR) 103.9 and 103.10. (SBL 337.A) Early termination cases include the following situations: termination is proposed before the expiration of the Senate or non-Senate faculty members appointment, a tenured faculty member faces termination for incompetent performance, or for other faculty members whose right to a hearing before a Senate committee is given under SOR 103.9 or 103.10. (SBL 337.A) Early termination cases are initiated by the faculty members request for a hearing. (SBL 337.A) Upon request, P&T Committee shall conduct a hearing to determine whether, in its judgment, the proposed early termination is: (a) for good cause, and (b) has been recommended in accordance with a procedure that does not violate the privileges of the faculty member. (SBL 337.A) Early Resolution Resolution of the dispute, either through negotiation or mediation, is permissible and appropriate at any stage of these proceedings. (SBL 337.A) Time Limitations No Senate or non-Senate faculty member may be terminated prior to the expiration of an appointment without having an opportunity for a hearing before the P&T Committee. If the hearing has not begun by the end of the faculty members

term of appointment, the faculty member no longer has a right to an early termination hearing pursuant to SBL 337. Instead, the faculty member may seek a grievance hearing by grieving the nonreappointment pursuant to SBL 335 in the case of Senate faculty, or the Academic Personnel Manual in the case of nonSenate faculty. (SBL 337.A) Pre-Hearing Procedures 1. P&T receives a request for a hearing from a faculty member who claims that: He/she is being terminated before the expiration of his/her appointment (Senate or non-Senate faculty), or He/she is tenured and faces termination for incompetent performance, or He/she is entitled to a hearing pursuant to Standing Orders of the Regents (SOR) 103.9 or 103.10 (SBL 337.A) (these situations are referred to as Early Termination) 2. P&T must conduct a hearing to determine whether, in its judgment, the proposed early termination is (a) for good cause, and (b) has been recommended in accordance with a procedure that does not violate the privileges of the faculty member. (SBL 337.A) 3. Resolution of the dispute, through negotiation or mediation, is permissible and appropriate at any stage of these proceedings. (SBL 337.A) 4. P&T shall appoint a Hearing Committee consisting of at least 3 Division members. At least 2 Hearing Committee members shall be members of P&T, and one of these shall chair the Hearing Committee.

UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 15 P&T may not appoint a member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of the faculty member facing early termination to the Hearing Committee. Hearing Committee members must disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case and recuse themselves as appropriate. A quorum for the conduct of the hearing shall consist of at least half but not less than 3 members of the Hearing Committee, including at least one member of P&T. (SBL 337.B.1) 5. Before the formal hearing, the Hearing Committee chair must schedule a conference with both the faculty member and the Chancellors designee and/or other representatives. This conference should attempt to: Determine the facts about which there is no dispute. At the hearing, these facts may be established by stipulation. Dene the issues to be decided by the Hearing Committee. Set a time for both sides to exchange a list of witnesses and copies of exhibits to be presented at the hearing. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to limit each party

to those witnesses whose names were disclosed to the other party before the hearing and to otherwise limit evidence to that which is relevant to the issues before the Hearing Committee. Specify whether pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs will be submitted by the parties as well as the deadlines for those briefs. Attain agreement about whether any person other than the Chancellor, the Chancellors designee, the faculty member, and their representatives may be present during all or part of the hearing. In order to preserve the condentiality of the hearing, persons whose presence is not essential to a determination of the facts shall, as a general rule, be excluded from the hearing. (SBL 337.2.a-e)Appendices UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 16Flow Chart -- Pre-Hearing and Hearing Procedures in Early Termination Cases Pre-Hearing and Hearing Procedures in Early Termination Cases Request for Hearing P&T receives a request for hearing on an early termination case from a faculty member entitled to such a hearing. P&T Committee must conduct a hearing to determine whether, in its judgment, the proposed early termination is (a) for good cause, and (b) has been recommended in accordance with a procedure that does not violate the privileges of the faculty member. Resolution of the dispute, either through negotiation or mediation, is permissible and appropriate at

any stage of these proceedings. [SBL 337(A)] The Hearing Committee The P&T Committee shall appoint a Hearing Committee. ! The Hearing Committee should consist of at least 3 Division members, at least 2 of whom must be P&T Committee members. ! One of the P&T Committee members on the Hearing Committee shall chair the Hearing Committee. ! No member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of the faculty member facing early termination may be appointed to the Hearing Committee. ! Hearing Committee members must disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case, and must recuse themselves as appropriate. ! A quorum for the conduct of the hearing shall be at least half but not less than 3 members of the hearing Committee, including at least 1 member of the P&T Committee. [SBL 337(B)(1)] Pre-Hearing Conference Before the hearing, the Hearing Committee chair shall schedule a conference with the parties and/or their representatives to: ! Determine facts about which there is no dispute. At the hearing, these facts may be established by stipulation. ! Dene the issues to be decided by the Hearing Committee. ! Set a time for both sides to exchange a list of witnesses and copies of exhibits to be presented at the hearing. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to limit each party to those witnesses whose names were disclosed to the other party before the hearing and to otherwise limit evidence to that which is relevant to the issues before the

Hearing Committee. ! Specify whether pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs will be submitted by the parties, and the deadlines for those briefs. ! Attain agreement about whether any person other than the Chancellor, the Chancellors designee, the grievant, and their representatives may be present during all or any part of the hearing. To preserve condentiality, persons whose presence is not essential to a determination of the facts shall, as a general rule, be excluded from the hearing. [SBL 337(B)(2)(a-e)] UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 17Rules Relating to the Formal Hearings in Early Termination Cases 1. The Chancellors designee, and the faculty member and/or their representatives are entitled to be present at all sessions of the Hearing Committee when evidence is being received and to select a representative who may act as counsel. (SBL 337.B.3) 2. Each party has the right to be represented by counsel. (SBL 337.B.3) 3. Each party has the right to present its case by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for full and true disclosure of the facts. (SBL 337.B.3) 4. The hearing does not have to be conducted according to the technical legal rules relating to evidence and witnesses. (SBL 337.B.4) 5. The Hearing Committee may, upon an appropriate showing of need by any party, or on its own initiative, request les and documents under the control of the administration. All condential information introduced into evidence, including the identity of condential sources of personnel evaluations, shall remain so within the Hearing Committee. (SBL 337.B.4)

6. The Hearing Committee may call witnesses or make evidentiary requests on its own volition. (SBL 337.B.4) 7. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to require that all witnesses afrm the veracity of their testimony. (SBL 337.B.4) 8. No evidence other than that presented at the hearing shall be considered by the Hearing committee or have weight in the proceedings, except that the Hearing Committee may take notice of any judicially noticeable facts that are commonly known. Parties present at the hearing shall be informed of matters thus noticed, and each party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Hearing Committees notice of such matters. (SBL 337.B.5) 9. The P&T Committee may, at its discretion, request the appointment of a qualied person or persons, designated by the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege & Tenure, to provide legal advice and/or to assist in the organization and conduct of the hearing. (SBL 337.B.6) 10. At the hearing the Chancellors designee bears the burden of proving that there is good cause for early termination by clear and convincing evidence. In assessing the evidence for good cause, the Hearing Committee may consider evidence regarding whether correct procedures were followed in the case. (SBL 337.B.7) The phrase clear and convincing evidence means generally that the Hearing Committee must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the allegations are true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard (requiring that it be more likely than not that a claim is true), but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

11. The hearing shall be recorded. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to use a certied court reporter (whose cost is borne by the administration) for this purpose, and the parties and their representatives shall have the right to a copy of the recording or transcript. The requesting party bears the cost of the copy. (SBL 337.B.9) Post-Hearing Procedures in Early Termination Cases ! At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee shall promptly make its nding of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation, and forward these to the parties in the case, the Chancellor, the Chair of P&T, and the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure. (SBL 337.B.8) ! The ndings, conclusions, recommendation, and record of the proceedings shall be condential to the extent allowed by law and UC policy. The Hearing Committee may, however, with the consent of the faculty member, authorize release of the ndings, conclusions, and recommendations to other individuals and entities, to the extent allowed by law. (SBL 337.B.8) ! The Hearing Committee may reconsider a case if either party presents, within a reasonable time after the decision, newly discovered facts or circumstances that might signicantly affect the previous decision and that were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the hearing. (SBL 337.B.10) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 18Best Practices P&T Committee Members 1. If contacted directly by a faculty member, you should advise that discussing the matter may create a problem for the

member and the P&T Committee later on, if the matter comes to P&T. 2. While it is not expressly prohibited for current P&T Committee members to give advice to a potential grievant, the better course of action is to refer the faculty member to someone on the Ad Hoc Advisory Panel or the Senate Ofce. It is best to refrain from offering your opinion on the substance of the potential grievance, and to provide only objective information. 3. However, you may ask for objective information, such as the faculty members series and department, and a very brief and generalized description of the problem. The P&T Inquiry Form lists appropriate information that may be solicited. It is not necessary to collect this information; if desired you may simply refer the faculty member to the resources listed below without making this inquiry. 4. You can tell the faculty member that there is information available in the bylaws, and at the Academic Senate website, and that the Academic Senate Ofce can provide more specic information. You should refer the faculty member to Shilpa Patel, the Senate analyst who staffs the P&T Committee, or Heather Alden, the Senate Director, for information. See below for Contact Information. 5. Unless the faculty member asks that you not disclose the contact, you should advise Shilpa Patel or Heather Alden of the contact. They can be reached at: Shilpa H. Patel, JD Heather Alden Senior Analyst Executive Director, Academic Senate (415) 514-2696 (415)476-8827 shilpa.patel@ucsf.edu heather.alden@ucsf.edu 6. If the faculty member contacts you again, you should politely remind them that any further involvement on your part could jeopardize the member if the matter comes before P&T. For example, if the matter came to P&T and a hearing committee was formed, your prior contact with the faculty member would have to be disclosed. If it appeared that

you had had too much contact or involvement initially, you might not be able to serve on a Hearing Committee. 7. If you have questions about interpretation of the Bylaws or other related matters, you should contact Shilpa Patel or Heather Alden in the Academic Senate ofce. They can contact the Ofce of General Counsel to provide legal advice to the P&T Committee or to a Hearing Committee, if necessary. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 19UCSF Committee on Privilege & Tenure FAQs The Committee on Privilege and Tenure is a standing committee of the Academic Senate of University of California San Francisco. This document has been prepared to assist in providing information about the P&T Committee and to perhaps offer insight into the types and levels of assistance available through the Privilege and Tenure Committee. The following answers to frequently asked questions should not be interpreted as anything more than an attempt to provide helpful information to the faculty. In all cases where there is an apparent or actual conict with University policy, the University of California Academic Personnel Manual, the University of California Academic Senate Bylaws and other relevant University policies shall control. P&T has tried to answer these questions to the best of its ability and in accordance with Senate Bylaws governing P&T proceedings. This document should be used for informational purposes only. What are the types of matters that P&T handles? There are three types: (1) Senate faculty grievances; (2) Senate faculty disciplinary cases; and (3) Early termination cases

where a Senate or non-Senate faculty member challenges whether there is good cause for his or her early termination. See UC Academic Senate Bylaw 334(A). http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl334 GRIEVANCES How can a Senate faculty member get advice or information on the available relief in case of a potential grievance? A Senate faculty member has the following resources available: 1) Review SBL 335 (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl335), which governs Privilege and Tenure grievance proceedings to learn about the process; 2) Contact the Chair of the UCSF Privilege and Tenure Committee, for referral to a special Ad Hoc Advisory Committee of former P&T members available to advise faculty members on potential grievances; or (3) Contact the Director of the Senate Ofce at 476-3808 for referral to the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Who is on the Privilege and Tenure Ad Hoc Advisory Committee? The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee consists of former P&T members and may change from year to year. Any faculty member who needs advice regarding a potential grievance may be referred to a member of this Ad Hoc Committee by the Chair of the P&T Committee, by the Senate Ofce or by self referral using the contact information available on the Academic Senate website: http://www.ucsf.edu/senate/0-committee/k-pat.html. How does a faculty member know that condentiality will be maintained? Members of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee shall maintain full condentiality to the extent allowable by law. Thus, an aggrieved Senate member may consult with Ad Hoc Advisory Committee members with the understanding that the grievance will not be disclosed and that the consultation shall not constitute notice of the grievance to the campus or

University administration. Can current P&T members give advice to a faculty member considering ling a grievance? Although this is not expressly prohibited, the better course of action is for the P&T member to refer the faculty member to someone on the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. What are P&Ts responsibilities once a grievance is led? P&Ts responsibilities with regard to grievances are set forth in Senate Bylaw 335. In short, P&T, acting as a full committee, must rst determine, based only upon the written grievance and no other information, whether the Senate member has made out a prima facie case. What is a prima facie case? A prima facie case shall be deemed established if the P&T Committee concludes that the allegations as stated in the written grievance, if true, would constitute a violation of the faculty members rights and privileges. What happens if P&T concludes that a prima facie case has been established? P&T may then conduct a preliminary review of the evidence to determine whether there is sufcient reason to believe that a right or privilege of the grievant may have been violated. What can be involved in a preliminary review of the evidence? UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 20P&T provides the grievant with the opportunity to discuss his or her allegations with the Committee, either orally or in writing. P&T may request les and documents under the control of the Administration, including the grievants personnel les and condential documents contained therein. (Note that such condential documents must remain condential within the committee unless disclosure is required by law). P&T may also ask other persons involved in the vents that

gave rise to the grievance, including the department chair, to appear before or provide information to P&T. When, if at all, does P&T have to contact the Administration about the grievance? After P&T has determined that a prima facie case exists, P&T may, during the preliminary review stage, give the administrator with authority to offer a remedy notice of the grievance and an opportunity to respond. P&T must advise the Chancellors designee of the grievance if the P&T determines that the grievant has made a prima facie case and that there is sufcient reason to believe that the grievants rights and privileges may have been violated. What does P&T do if it nds either that a prima facie case has not been established, or that, after a preliminary review, there is not sufcient reason to believe that the grievants rights and privileges may have been violated? P&T shall advise the grievant to that effect in a written communication stating the reasons for its conclusion. What happens if P&T does nd that there is sufcient reason to believe the grievants rights and privileges have been violated? In addition to advising the Chancellors designee, P&T must make an attempt to promote a resolution of the controversy between the grievant and the administrative ofcer, ofcer, or other persons concerned. If no resolution can be reached, then P&T shall conduct a hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Senate Bylaw 335(D). What alternatives to a hearing are available? Any party may attempt to resolve the grievance informally through negotiation at any stage of the proceedings. Such negotiations may have the assistance of impartial third parties, including one or more P&T members. P&T should be advised in writing of any such informal resolution.

In addition, the grievance may be resolved through mediation if that is acceptable to the administration and the grievant. With the consent of both, P&T may assist in the selection of an appropriate mediator. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SBL 336. Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees Disciplinary Actions: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl336 Are there any time limits on initiation of a disciplinary action? SBL 336(B)(4) states in relevant part that no disciplinary action may commence if more than three years have passed between the time when the Chancellor or the Chancellors designee knew or should have known about the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct, and the delivery of the notice of proposed disciplinary action. Can anyone other than Senate faculty members have a P&T hearing in a disciplinary action? No. In disciplinary proceedings only Senate faculty members are entitled to a hearing before P&T. At what point in a disciplinary action does P&T become involved? SBL 336 governs P&Ts involvement in disciplinary actions of Senate faculty members. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl336. P&T becomes involved once the Chancellor or Chancellors designee has forwarded written disciplinary charges against a Senate faculty member to P&T. The Chancellor or Chancellors designee initiates disciplinary proceedings before P&T only after a determination that probable cause has been established. Procedures regarding the establishment of probable cause are governed by APM 015/016 and the UCSF Procedures for the Investigation of Faculty Misconduct and the Administration of Discipline. What is P&Ts next step after receiving a copy of the written charges from the Chancellor or Chancellors

designee? P&T must then promptly deliver a copy of the charges to the accused faculty member or send it by registered mail to the last known place of residence of the accused. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 21What does P&T do after the accused faculty member has received the charges? The accused faculty member has 21 calendar days from the date of receipt of the charges to provide an answer to the charges in writing to P&T. P&T must provide a copy of the answer to the Chancellor or Chancellors designee. P&T shall then consider the matter within 21 calendar days after receipt of the answer, or, if no answer is received, after the deadline for receipt of an answer. What does it mean for P&T to consider the matter? P&T evaluates the case and establishes a time frame for all subsequent procedures. P&T may decide to refer the case to mediation if mediation is acceptable both to the administration and the accused (SBL 336(C)), or may appoint a hearing committee (SBL 336(D)). P&T must appoint a hearing committee if the matter is not resolved through a negotiated resolution or mediation. (SBL 336(D)(1)). http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl336. If P&T appoints a hearing committee rather than referring the case to mediation, are there guidelines regarding the time frame for the hearing? As a general guide, P&T should attempt, where feasible, to schedule a prehearing conference (described in SBL 336(D)(2)) within 30 calendar days and a hearing within 90 calendar days after the appointment of the hearing committee. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl336 Are there any other time limits P&T should follow regarding a hearing? P&T must either deliver to the accused personally or by registered mail notice of the time and place of the hearing at least

10 calendar days in advance of the hearing. Who is on a Hearing Committee? The Hearing Committee must consist of at least three Division members. This minimum of three shall include at least two members of the Divisional P&T, one of whom shall chair the Hearing Committee. What if one of the Hearing Committee members has a potential conict? P&T may not appoint anyone to the Hearing Committee who is a member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of any of the parties. In addition, Hearing Committee members must disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case and recuse themselves as appropriate. What if one of the Hearing Committee members cannot be present for all the proceedings? The Hearing Committee may conduct business if at least half (but not less than three) of its members are present and one of those present is a P&T member. Are there procedures that govern a hearing in a disciplinary matter? Yes. Please see SBL 336(D)(1-12) and (E). http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl336 What alternatives to a hearing are available? The Chancellor or Chancellors designee and the accused may attempt to resolve the disciplinary charges informally through negotiation at any stage of the proceedings. Such negotiations may have the assistance of impartial third parties, including one or more P&T members. P&T should be advised in writing of any such informal resolution. In addition, the disciplinary charges may be resolved through mediation if that is acceptable to the administration and the accused. With the consent of both, P&T may assist in the selection of an appropriate mediator. Once charges have been led with P&T, however, the Chair of P&T should request that the Chancellor or Chancellors

designee consult with P&T or its chair prior to completion of any early resolution. EARLY TERMINATION CASES SBL 337. Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees Early Termination Cases: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl337 Under what circumstances is a faculty member entitled to request a hearing in front of P&T for an early termination case? UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 22A Senate or non-Senate faculty member may request a P&T hearing: in cases of proposed termination before the expiration of the faculty members appointment; in cases where a tenure faculty member faces termination for incompetent performance; or for other faculty members whose right to a hearing before a senate committee is given by Section 103.9 or Section 103.10 of the Standing Orders of The Regents. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/so1039.html and http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/so10310.html. What if a P&T hearing has not started by the time a faculty members term of appointment ends? No Senate or non-Senate faculty member may be terminated prior to the expiration of an appointment without having an opportunity for a hearing before P&T. However, if the hearing has not commenced by the end of the faculty members term of appointment, the faculty member no longer has a right to an early termination hearing pursuant to Senate Bylaw 337. Instead, the faculty member may seek a grievance hearing by grieving the non-reappointment, either pursuant to Academic Senate Bylaw 335 in the case of Senate faculty, or pursuant to Academic Personnel Manual (APM) 140, in the case of non-Senate faculty. If P&T conducts a hearing regarding an early termination, what is it determining?

P&T shall determine whether, in its judgment, the proposed early termination is 1) for good cause, and 2) has been recommended in accordance with a procedure that does not violate the privileges of the faculty member. Are there procedures that govern an early termination hearing? Yes. Please see SBL 337(B)(1-10). http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#bl337. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 23Chart: Grievance vs. Disciplinary vs. Early Termination GRIEVANCE DISCIPLINARY EARLY TERMINATION Initiation of Proceedings By Senate member ling grievance with P&T By Administration ling written charges with P&T By Senate or non-Senate faculty member requesting a hearing before P&T Time Limitations Grievance cant be considered if led more than 3 years after grievant knew or should have known of the violation of rights and privileges and resulting injury Disciplinary action cant commence if notice of proposed disciplinary action is delivered more than 3 years after Chancellor or Chancellors designee knew or should have known about the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct If the hearing has not begun before the faculty members term of appointment ends,

member loses the right to an early termination hearing and instead can le a grievance Availability of advisory panel Yes Not applicable Not applicable Determination of prima facie case, followed by preliminary review of the evidence Yes Not applicable Not applicable Burden of proof Borne by grievant Borne by Chancellor or Chancellors designee Borne by Chancellors designee Standard of proof Preponderance of the evidence (means generally that the Hearing Committee must be persuaded by the evidence that it is more likely than not that a claim is true) Clear and convincing evidence (means generally that the Hearing Committee must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the allegations are true. This standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing evidence (means generally that the Hearing Committee must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the allegations are true. This standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Basic Issue(s) to be determined at the hearing ! Whether a Senate members rights or privileges were violated ! In cases involving tenure, promotion or reappointment, the only issues which may be reviewed are: (A) whether the procedures were not in consonance with the applicable rules and requirements of the University of any of its Divisions, or (B) whether the challenged (C) decision was reached on the basis of impermissible criteria, including race, sex or political conviction Whether Senate member or other qualifying faculty member violated the Faculty Code of Conduct Whether the proposed early termination is for good cause and has been recommended in accordance with a procedure that does not violate the privileges of the faculty member UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 24P&T Inquiry Form

Name of Caller: __________________________________________________________ Date of Initial Contact: ____________________________________________________ Series of Caller: _________________________________________________________ School/Department of Caller: ______________________________________________ Callers Phone No. or e-mail: _______________________________________________ Type of Issue (Grievance, Disciplinary, Hybrid) ______________________________ Brief Description of Problem/Issue/Inquiry: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ Information Provided to Caller: ________________________________________________________________________ ____ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ Additional Contacts with Caller: Date of Contact Description of Conversation Name of Person Completing Form ___________________________________ UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 25Resource Materials Resource Contact List Type of Resource Contact Person Phone E-mail Campus Box/Address Academic Personnel Cynthia Leathers, Director, Academic Personnel (415) 476-2888 cal@acadpers.ucsf.edu Academic Affairs Box 0401 Senate Faculty Grievances, Disciplinary Issues and Complaints Shilpa Patel, Senior Analyst (415) 514-2696 shilpa.patel@ucsf.edu Academic Senate Box 0764 Afrmative Action, Equal Opportunity & Diversity Issues Michael B. Adams, Director (415) 476-4753 madams@aaeod.ucsf.edu Ofce of Afrmative Action/Equal Opportunity & Diversity Box 0988 Mediation/Voluntary Dispute Resolution Randy Daron, Acting Director, WorkLife Resource Center or

Marueen Brodie, Mediation Ofcer (415) 502-9600 (415) 502-3272 rdaron@worklife.ucsf.edu mbrodie@worklife.ucsf.edu Work Life Resource Center Box 1264 Grievances & Disciplinary Issues Non Senate Series Sally Marshall, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs (415) 514-0266 sally.marshall@ucsf.edu Academic Affairs Box 0401 Sexual Harassment Joyce Hammel, Ofce of Sexual Harassment Prevention (415) 502-5166 jhammel@worklife.ucsf.edu Work Life Resource Center Box 1264 Status of Women Issues Elizabeth Ozer, Chair, Chancellors Advisory Committee on the Status of Women (CACSW) (415) 502-4851 ozere@peds.ucsf.edu Department of Pediatrics Box 0503 Women and Gender Resources Sexual and Relationship Violence Resources and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resources Amy Levine, Ed.D., Executive Director (415) 476-5837 alevine@genderequity.ucsf.edu Center for Gender Equity Box 0909

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resources Shane Snowdon, Director, LGBT Resource Center (415) 502-5593 shane.snowdon@ucsf.edu LGBT Resource Center Box 0909 Whistleblower Policy Compliance Issues Rick Catalano, Director Audit Services (415) 476-3851 Whistleblower Hotline: (800) 403-4744 rick.catalano@ucsf.edu Website: https:// secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/ en/gui/23531/index.html Audit Services Box 0818 26P&T Advisory Panel School of Dentistry: Name Department Title Phone Email Grayson Bill Marshall Preventive & Restorative Dental Sciences Professor (415) 476-9119 gwmarshall@ucsf.edu Gary Armitage Orofacial Sciences Professor (415) 476-8955 gary.armitage@ucsf.edu School of Medicine: Name Department Title Phone Email W. Lawrence Drew Laboratory Medicine Professor (415) 885-7315 lawrence.drew@clinlab.ucsfmedctr.org

Frederic Waldman Laboratory Medicine Professor in Residence (415) 476-3821 fred.waldman@ucsf.edu School of Nursing: Name Department Title Phone Email Julia Faucett Community Health Systems Professor (415) 476-3221 julia.faucett@nursing.ucsf.edu Barbara Drew Family Health Care Nursing Professor (415) 476-4302 barbara.drew@nursing.ucsf.edu School of Pharmacy: Name Department Title Phone Email Michael Winter Clinical Pharmacy Professor 476-8891 winterm@pharmacy.ucsf.edu Betty Dong Clinical Pharmacy Professor 476-1972 dongb@pharmacy.ucsf.eduCondentiality and Liability Issues for Members of P&T Condentiality Issues 1. Information about specic individuals and matters brought to the attention of the Privilege and Tenure Committee is generally considered highly sensitive and condential. You have a responsibility to maintain condentiality to the greatest extent permitted by law and University policy. 2. If you have any questions about whether it is appropriate to disclose information to another University employee or to a third party, you should contact Shilpa Patel or Heather Alden in the Academic Senate Ofce. They can contact OGC or the campus Information Practices Coordinator for further advice as necessary. 3. In general, individuals have a legal right to access records pertaining to themselves, under the California Information Practices Act. There are some exceptions to this general rule, however, so you should not automatically assume that a faculty member has a right to access all documents pertaining to him or her. Common exceptions to the rule of disclosure to the individual include: attorneyclient privileged materials, condential academic

review materials, the identity of condential sources of information, and personal information about other individuals. If an individual requests information or records pertaining to himself, you should contact the Academic Senate ofce for assistance. 4. Under the California Information Practices Act, disclosure of condential information to other university ofcials is legally permitted where the information is relevant and necessary for them to perform their job. This is the basis for the various Bylaw provisions requiring or permitting disclosure of information to campus ofcials. If the Bylaws do not expressly require or permit disclosure to another university ofcial, you should presume that disclosure is not permitted, unless and until receiving different advice from the Academic Senate ofce or legal counsel. 5. Other departments are not subject to the same legal condentiality requirements. Therefore, other departments are often reluctant to produce requested by the P&T Committee, on these grounds. However, the P&T Committee is authorized in the Bylaws to obtain records about a grievant or accused individual, including condential personnel materials, so in most cases the other department should provide the records. If you need assistance in obtaining records from another department, you should contact the Academic Senate ofce for advice. 6. Members of the Advisory Panel are neither permitted nor required by the Bylaws to disclose any information to anyone about a potential grievant. Therefore, complete condentiality should be maintained, to the extent permitted by law. Liability Issues 1. This is an area of a lot of concern, but the number of cases where individuals are named in lawsuits related to

P$T matters are very small. The unlikely prospect that you could be named in a lawsuit should not cause you signicant concern, given the Universitys responsibility to protect your interests in such a case. 2. The University is generally required to defend and indemnify University employees who are named as defendants in a lawsuit relating to their University activities. This is a legal requirement under the California Tort Claims Act, which governs tort liability of public entities and their employees. This is a requirement regardless of whether the University itself is named as a defendant. 3. Participation in an administrative hearing, or otherwise undertaking your assigned role as a member of the P&T Committee or a member of the Advisory Panel, is generally considered a University activity, for purposes of the Universitys obligation to defend and indemnify its employees. 4. Defense and indemnication means that: (1) the University would provide you with a legal defense (including your own separate attorney if it turns out that your legal interests diverge from the Universitys); and (2) that the University would pay any judgment entered against you. 5. As a practical matter, the University generally attempts to have individual named defendants dismissed as soon as possible, leaving the University itself as the sole defendant. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 286. The only time that the University is not required to defend and indemnify its employees is if they are not acting within the course and scope of their employment. For example, a University employee who is found to have committee sexual harassment will not be defended by the University in any lawsuit against them based on the

sexual harassment. This is because committing sexual harassment is not within the course and scope of employment. 7. In the vast majority of cases, individual University employee defendants are provided with a defense by the University. Good faith participation in administrative hearings and other P&T-related matters would virtually always be considered to be within the course and scope of your employment. 8. Note that the Universitys obligation to defend and indemnify its employees applies only to University-related activities, and not to other personal activity. As discussed above, it also does not apply where the activity may have been University-related, but was not within the course and scope of employment. 9. Although the University is generally required to defend and indemnify its employees, that does not mean that there is no practical consequence to being named as a defendant in a lawsuit. Named defendants will be required to cooperate with the University legal counsel, are likely to have their deposition taken, may have to testify in court, etc. The time, resources and emotional energy involved can be substantial. But the University makes efforts to support its employees through this process. General Background and Best Practices for Advisory Panel Members Rules Governing the Role of Advisory Panel Members ! Senate By-Law 335.B.1 authorizes the formation of an advisory panel. ! Advisory panel members are only authorized to assist a faculty member in potential grievance cases. There is no authority in the by-laws for assisting a faculty member in disciplinary or early termination cases. (SBL 335.B.1). Senate By-Law 335.B.1 states:

For the purpose of advising Senate members on the available relief in case of a potential grievance, each Division (in accordance with specications to be determined by the Division) shall appoint an individual or panel (preferably former members of the P&T Committee, but not current members) who shall be available to each grievant to discuss the claim of violation of rights and privileges and provide advice on the appropriate procedure to be followed. ! Such individuals or panel members shall not serve as representatives of any grievant. ! Such individuals or panel members shall maintain full condentiality to the extent allowable by law. ! An aggrieved Senate member may consult with the individuals appointed under this provision with the understanding that the grievance will not be disclosed and that the consultation shall not constitute notice to the campus or University administration. How the Ad Hoc Advisory Panel is Created at UCSF At UCSF, former members of P&T are appointed by the Committee on Committees to the Ad Hoc Advisory Panel. If a potential grievant contacts the Senate Ofce, he/she will be advised of the availability of the Advisory Panel. The potential grievant will be asked if they prefer to talk with someone inside or outside their Department or School. Their preference will be respected when possible. The Senate Ofce will then provide the panel members name and contact information to the potential grievant. A potential grievant may also be referred to a panel member by a P&T Committee member or by self-referral from the Senate website. Best Practices 1. Your role as a panel member is to provide information on available procedures, not on the substance of the potential

grievance. It is very important to remember that your role does NOT include giving legal advice. It is best to let the faculty member know this at the outset. Referring to SBL 335.B.1 may be helpful in educating the faculty member about the scope of assistance you can provide. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 292. You should encourage the faculty member to pursue all available administrative remedies, through the Department or School, unless this has already occurred or it would be futile. 3. You should inform the faculty member about the existence of mediation as an option, either formal or informal. It may be helpful to explain that the by-laws encourage informal resolutions when possible. You can remind the faculty member that in a negotiated resolution, he or she has some control in the outcome, but when a grievance goes to a Hearing Committee, the outcome rests in the hands of others. 4. Although you should be helpful and supportive within the limits of your role, you should avoid sympathizing with the faculty member, as the faculty member may misinterpret sympathy as support for his/her position. It is best to remain objective and provide the potential grievant with procedural information only. 5. You should try to avoid expressing an opinion about the grievants situation, about the merits of their potential grievance, or about what course of action you think they should take. Instead, you should simply provide the potential grievant with information about procedures and resources. 6. If you have questions about interpretation of the Bylaws and your role as an advisory panel member, you should contact Shilpa Patel or Heather Alden in the Academic Senate ofce. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines

30Reference Bylaws *Please note that this information is current as of November 2010 and is superseded by any subsequent revisions. The most up-to-date information can be found here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html Divisional Bylaw 141. A. Membership: This Committee shall consist of nine members. A quorum shall always include either the Chair or Vice Chair. [Am 10 Feb 98] B. Duties: To take cognizance of all matters affecting privilege or tenure of all members of the Academic Senate or ofcers of instruction in the San Francisco Division, and shall conduct hearings in individual cases. In all instances it must accord the person whose case is being considered an opportunity to be heard in his or her own behalf before a decision is rendered. The principles and detailed procedures governing the conduct of the Committee are set forth in Academic Senate Bylaw 334-337. [Am 10 Feb 98] C. In accordance with Academic Senate Bylaw 335(B)(1), the San Francisco Division shall appoint an individual or panel (preferably former members of the Privilege and Tenure Committee, but not current members) who shall be available to each grievant to discuss the claim of violation of rights and privileges and to provide advice on the appropriate procedure to be followed. Such individuals or panel members shall not serve as representatives of any grievant, and they shall maintain full condentiality to the extent allowable by law. An aggrieved Senate member may consult with the individuals appointed under this provision or under Academic Senate Bylaw

335(B)(1) with the understanding that the grievance will not be disclosed and that the consultation shall not constitute notice of the grievance to the campus or University administration. Senate Bylaws 334-337. 334. Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees -- Jurisdiction (En 23 May 01)* [See Legislative Rulings 3.73, 12.80, 3.93.A-B, 4.94] A. Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committees shall have jurisdiction to deal with three distinct categories of cases: 1. grievance cases (SBL335), where a member of the Senate claims injury through the violation of his/her rights and privileges; 2. disciplinary cases (SBL 336), where a member of the Senate is accused of having violated the Faculty Code of Conduct; and 3. early termination cases (SBL 337), where a Senate or non-Senate faculty member challenges whether there is good cause for his/her early termination. Such committees may also be called upon by the campus administration of their Division to render advice on campus policies or local regulations that may affect academic privileges and tenure. [See Legislative Ruling 12.80] B. At the end of every year, the Divisional Committee will supply a summary of its cases to the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure, to be used for statistical purposes only. This summary shall not include the name of any individual involved in a case before the Divisional Committee. For any matter

held over from the previous year, the Committee shall report the nal disposition of the case. The Divisional Committee shall also report any nal disagreements with their Chancellor. C. Resolution of Disagreements with the Chancellor. After any formal hearing on grievance, discipline, or early termination, upon notice of the Chancellor's tentative decision to disagree with the Privilege and UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 31Tenure ndings or recommendations, the Chair of the Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee should either meet with the Chancellor or arrange for the full Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee to meet with the Chancellor. The Committee is obliged to report the existence of agreement or disagreement with the Chancellor annually to the Division of the Senate, without divulging condential information. *In May 2001, Bylaws 334-337 replaced the former Senate Bylaw governing all divisional Privilege and Tenure activities, Bylaw 335. 335. Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees -- Grievance Cases (En 23 May 01) A. Scope 1. Any member of the Academic Senate may grieve to the Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee (hereafter, the Committee) that the member's rights or privileges have been violated. Before considering the grievance and determining whether a formal evidentiary hearing is warranted, the Committee may require that the grievant shall rst exhaust all appropriate

administrative avenues of redress. Administrative avenues of redress include, but are not limited to, presentation of the grievance along with a request for an administrative remedy to the department chair, dean, or other appropriate academic administrator with authority to investigate and offer a remedy. 2. In cases of personnel review involving tenure, promotion, or reappointment, such grievances may be based only on allegations: (a) that the procedures were not in consonance with the applicable rules and requirements of the University or any of its Divisions, and/or (b) that the challenged decision was reached on the basis of impermissible criteria, including (but not limited to) race, sex, or political conviction. The committee shall be empowered to determine the validity of the grievances under (a) or (b) but shall not be empowered to reevaluate the academic qualications or professional competence of the grievant. B. Preliminary Procedure in Grievance Cases 1. For the purpose of advising Senate members on the available relief in case of a potential grievance, each Division, in accordance with specications to be determined by such Division, shall appoint an individual or panel (preferably former members of the Privilege and Tenure Committee, but not current members) who shall be available to each grievant to discuss the claim of violation of rights and privileges and to provide advice on the appropriate

procedure to be followed. Such individuals or panel members shall not serve as representatives of any grievant, and they shall maintain full condentiality to the extent allowable by law. An aggrieved Senate member may consult with the individuals appointed under this provision with the understanding that the grievance will not be disclosed and that the consultation shall not constitute notice of the grievance to the campus or University administration. In cases where the grievance contains allegations of improper governmental activities and/or allegations of retaliation for reporting improper governmental activities, panel members shall inform grievants of their right to make a protected disclosure of allegations of improper governmental activities and/or allegations of retaliation for reporting improper governmental activities to the Locally Designated Ofcial (LDO) pursuant to the Whistleblower Policy and the Whistleblower Protection Policy. Panel members also shall inform grievants that any such allegations that are part of a grievance brought to the Privilege and Tenure Committee will be reported to the LDO in accordance with the Whistleblower Policy and/or the Whistleblower Protection Policy. (Am 10 Mar 04) 2. Upon receipt of a written grievance , the Privilege and Tenure Committee shall rst determine whether or not the grieving Senate member has made out a prima facie case. This determination shall be limited to a review of the written grievance only. A prima facie case shall be deemed established if the Committee concludes that the allegations as stated in the written

grievance, if true, would constitute a violation of the faculty member's rights and privileges. If the grievance includes allegations of improper governmental activities and/or allegations of retaliation for reporting improper governmental activities, the Committee shall report those allegations to the LDO in accordance with the Whistleblower Policy and/or the Whistleblower Protection Policy. (Am 10 Mar 04) UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 323. If it nds that there is a prima facie case, the Committee may conduct a preliminary review of the evidence to determine whether there is sufcient reason to believe that a right or privilege of the grievant may have been violated. In the course of its preliminary review, the Committee shall provide the grievant with an opportunity to discuss his or her allegations with the Committee, either orally or in writing. Upon an appropriate showing of need by any party or on its own initiative, the Committee may request les and documents under the control of the administration, including the grievant's personnel les and condential documents contained therein. Such condential documents shall remain condential within the committee unless disclosure is required by law. At this stage, the Committee may also give the administrator with authority to offer a remedy notice of the grievance and an opportunity to respond. To further facilitate its review, the Committee may also ask other persons involved in the events

that gave rise to the grievance, including the department chair, to appear before or provide information to the Committee. 4. If the committee determines either that the grievant has not made out a prima facie case or that after a preliminary review, there is not sufcient reason to believe that the grievant's rights and privileges may have been violated, it shall advise the grievant to that effect in a written communication stating the reasons for its conclusion. 5. If the Committee determines that the grievant has made out a prima facie case of violation of a right or privilege, and that there is sufcient reason to believe that the grievant's rights and privileges may have been violated, the Committee shall advise the Chancellor's designee of the grievance and the prima facie determination. The Committee shall make an attempt to promote a resolution of the controversy between the grievant and the administrative ofcer, ofcers, or other persons concerned. If no resolution can be reached, the Committee shall conduct a formal hearing in accordance with the provisions set forth below. 6. No grievance may be considered by the Committee if more than three years have passed between the time the grievant knew or should have known about the violation of his/her rights and privileges and the resulting injury therefrom, and the ling of a grievance with the Committee. C. Early Resolution

1. Any party may attempt to resolve the grievance informally through negotiations. Such negotiations may proceed with the assistance of impartial third parties, including one or more members of the Committee. A negotiated resolution is permissible and appropriate at any stage of these grievance procedures. If a negotiated resolution is reached after a written grievance is led, then the Privilege and Tenure Committee should be given notice that the matter has been resolved. 2. The grievance may also be resolved through mediation in cases where such mediation is acceptable to the administration and the grievant. With the consent of the administration and the grievant, the Committee may assist in the selection of an appropriate mediator. Other relevant parties, including members of the Committee, may participate in the mediation. D. Hearing and Posthearing Procedures 1. The Privilege and Tenure Committee shall appoint a Hearing Committee for each grievance case that is not resolved through a negotiated resolution or mediation. The Hearing Committee should consist of at least three Division members. At least two of the members shall be members of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, one of whom shall chair the Hearing Committee. The committee may not appoint a member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of any of the parties to the Hearing Committee. Hearing Committee members shall disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their

objective consideration of the case and recuse themselves as appropriate. A quorum for the conduct of the hearing shall consist of at least half but not less than three members of the Hearing Committee, including at least one member of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. 2. Prior to the formal hearing, the chair of the Hearing Committee shall schedule a conference with the parties and/or their representatives. This conference should attempt to: UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 33a. Determine the facts about which there is no dispute. At the hearing, these facts may be established by stipulation. b. Dene the issues to be decided by the hearing committee. c. Set a time for both sides to exchange a list of witnesses and copies of exhibits to be presented at the hearing. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to limit each party to those witnesses whose names were disclosed to the other party prior to the hearing and to otherwise limit evidence to that which is relevant to the issues before the hearing committee. d. Specify whether prehearing and post-hearing briefs will be submitted by the parties as well as the deadlines for those briefs. e. Attain agreement about whether any person other than the Chancellor, the Chancellor's designee, the grievant, and their representatives may be present during all or part of the hearing. In order to preserve the condentiality of the hearing, persons whose presence is not essential to a determination of the facts shall, as a general rule, be excluded from the hearing.

3. The Chancellor's designee, the grievant, and/or their representatives shall be entitled to be present at all sessions of the Hearing Committee when evidence is being received. Each party shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to present its case by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. 4. The hearing need not be conducted according to the technical legal rules relating to evidence and witnesses. The Hearing Committee may, upon an appropriate showing of need by any party or on its own initiative, request les and documents under the control of the administration. All condential information introduced into evidence, including the identity of condential sources of personnel evaluations, shall remain so within the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee may call witnesses or make evidentiary requests on its own volition. The Hearing Committee also has the discretion to require that all witnesses afrm the veracity of their testimony. 5. No evidence other than that presented at the hearing shall be considered by the Hearing Committee or have weight in the proceedings, except that the Hearing Committee may take notice of any judicially noticeable facts that are commonly known. Parties present at the hearing shall be informed of matters thus noticed, and each party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Hearing Committee's notice of such matters.

6. The Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure may, at its discretion, request the appointment of a qualied person or persons, designated by the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure, to provide legal advice and/or to assist in the organization and conduct of the hearing. 7. At the hearing, the grievant shall bear the burden of proving the validity of the grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. 8. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee shall promptly make its ndings of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation, and forward these to the parties in the case, the Chancellor, the Chair of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The ndings, conclusions, recommendations, and record of the proceedings shall be condential to the extent allowed by law and UC policy. The Hearing Committee may, however, with the consent of the grievant, authorize release of the ndings, conclusions, and recommendations to other individuals or entities, to the extent allowed by law. 9. The hearing shall be recorded. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to use a certied court reporter (whose cost is borne by the administration) for this purpose, and the parties and their representatives shall have the right to a copy of the recording or transcript. The cost of the copy shall be assumed by the requesting party. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines

3410. The Hearing Committee may reconsider a case if either party presents, within a reasonable time after the decision, newly discovered facts or circumstances that might signicantly affect the previous decision and that were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the hearing. E. Grievance Cases Related to Disciplinary Cases 1. There are circumstances in which the same set of facts and allegations lead to both a disciplinary matter and a grievance before the Committee. Under these circumstances, when a single hearing is held, the Committee shall make separate reports of ndings, conclusions, and recommendations for the grievance and for the disciplinary matter. a. When a grievance involves the same set of facts that are the subject of a disciplinary matter, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure may, at its discretion, hold either matter in abeyance while it proceeds with the other. Alternatively, the Committee may, with the consent of the grievant, the accused in the disciplinary matter, and the Chancellor's designee, consider both matters within a single hearing. b. When a Senate member facing disciplinary charges les a grievance involving the same set of facts and circumstances as the disciplinary matter, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure has the discretion to consider both matters within a single hearing. 2. When a Senate member les a grievance which is based upon the same facts and incidents involved in a prior disciplinary hearing at which the same Senate member was accused of violating the Code of Conduct, the ndings and conclusions of the prior disciplinary hearing shall be conclusive.

336. Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees -- Disciplinary Cases (En 23 May 01) A. Right to a Hearing In cases of disciplinary action commenced by the administration against a member of the Academic Senate, or against other faculty members in cases where the right to a hearing before a Senate committee is given by Section 103.9 or 103.10 of the Standing Orders of The Regents (Appendix I), proceedings shall be conducted before a Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee (hereafter, the Committee). Under extraordinary circumstances and for good cause shown, on petition of any of the parties and with concurrence of the other parties, the University Privilege and Tenure Committee may constitute a Special Committee composed of Senate members from any Division to carry out the proceedings. B. Prehearing Procedure in Disciplinary Cases 1. In cases of disciplinary action commenced by the administration against a member of the Academic Senate, or termination of appointment of a member of the faculty in a case where the right to a hearing before a Senate committee is given under Section 103.9 or 103.10 of the Standing Orders of The Regents, proceedings shall be initiated by the appropriate Chancellor or Chancellor's designee, once probable cause has been established. Procedures regarding the establishment of probable cause are determined by APM 015/016 and Divisional policies. The charges shall be in writing and shall contain notice of proposed disciplinary action and a full statement of the facts underlying the charges. Upon receipt of the charges, the Chair of the Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee shall promptly deliver a copy to the accused faculty member or send it by registered mail to the accused's last known place of

residence. 2. The accused shall have twenty-one calendar days from the date of the receipt in which to le an answer in writing with the Committee. The Committee shall provide a copy of the answer to the Chancellor or Chancellor's designee. Upon receipt of a written application, the chair of the Committee may grant a reasonable extension of time for ling of an answer. 3. The Privilege and Tenure committee shall consider the matter within 21 calendar days after receipt of an answer or, if no answer is received, after the deadline for receipt of an answer. The Committee shall evaluate the case and establish time frames for all subsequent procedures. The committee may refer the case to mediation (SBL 336.C) or appoint a hearing committee (SBL 336.D). As a general guide, a prehearing conference (SBL 336.D.2) shall be scheduled within 30 calendar days and a hearing (SBL 336.D) shall be scheduled within 90 UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 35calendar days of the appointment of a hearing committee. The accused shall be given, either personally or by registered mail, at least ten calendar days' notice of the time and place of the hearing. The Chancellor, Chancellor's designee, or Chair of the Privilege and Tenure Committee may for good reason grant an extension of any of these time limits. 4. No disciplinary action may commence if more than three years have passed between the

time when the Chancellor or Chancellor's designee, who is authorized to initiate proceedings in accordance with SBL 336.B.1 and divisional disciplinary procedures, knew or should have known about the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct, and the delivery of the notice of proposed disciplinary action. For purposes of this section, if an administrator or employee in a supervisory role (e.g., program director, department chair, dean) has actual knowledge about an alleged violation, then it will be conclusively presumed that the Chancellor or Chancellor's designee should have known about the alleged violation. (Am 9 March 05) C. Early Resolution 1. The Chancellor or Chancellor's designee and the accused may attempt to resolve the disciplinary charges informally through negotiations. Such negotiations may proceed with the assistance of impartial third parties, including one or more members of the Committee. A negotiated resolution is permissible and appropriate at any stage of these disciplinary procedures. If a negotiated resolution is reached after written charges are led, then the Privilege and Tenure Committee should be given notice that the matter has been resolved. 2. The disciplinary charges may also be resolved through mediation in cases where such mediation is acceptable to the administration and the accused. With the consent of the administration and the accused, the Committee may assist in the selection of an appropriate mediator. Other relevant parties, including members of the Committee, may participate in the mediation. 3. Once charges have been led with the Committee, the Chair of the Divisional Privilege and

Tenure Committee should request that the Chancellor or Chancellor's designee consult with the Committee or its chair prior to the completion of any early resolution. D. Hearing and Posthearing Procedures 1. The Privilege and Tenure Committee shall appoint a Hearing Committee for each disciplinary case that is not resolved through a negotiated resolution or mediation. The Hearing Committee should consist of at least three Division members. At least two of the members shall be members of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, one of whom shall chair the Hearing Committee. The Committee may not appoint a member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of any of the parties to the Hearing Committee. Hearing Committee members shall disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case and recuse themselves as appropriate. A quorum for the conduct of the hearing shall consist of at least half but not less than three members of the Hearing Committee, including at least one member of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. 2. Prior to the formal hearing, the chair of the Hearing Committee shall schedule a conference with the accused, the Chancellor or the Chancellor's designee, and/or their representatives. This conference should attempt to: a. Determine the facts about which there is no dispute. At the hearing, these facts may be established by stipulation. b. Dene the issues to be decided by the Hearing Committee. c. Set a time for both sides to exchange a list of witnesses and copies of exhibits to

be presented at the hearing. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to limit each party to those witnesses whose names were disclosed to the other party prior to the hearing and to otherwise limit evidence to that which is relevant to the issues before the Hearing Committee. d. Specify whether prehearing and post-hearing briefs will be submitted by the parties as well as the deadlines for those briefs. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 36e. Attain agreement about whether any person other than the Chancellor, the Chancellor's designee, the accused, and their representatives may be present during all or part of the hearing. In order to preserve the condentiality of the hearing, persons whose presence is not essential to a determination of the facts shall, as a general rule, be excluded from the hearing. 3. The Chancellor's designee, the accused, and/or their representatives shall be entitled to be present at all sessions of the Hearing Committee when evidence is being received. Each party shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to present its case by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. 4. The hearing need not be conducted according to the technical legal rules relating to evidence and witnesses. The Hearing Committee may, upon an appropriate showing of need by any

party or on its own initiative, request les and documents under the control of the administration. All condential information introduced into evidence shall remain so within the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee may call witnesses or make evidentiary requests on its own volition. The Hearing Committee also has the discretion to require that all witnesses afrm the veracity of their testimony. 5. Prior discipline involving the same accused faculty member may be admitted into evidence if the prior conduct for which the faculty member was disciplined is relevant to the acts alleged in the current disciplinary matter. Under these conditions, prior hearing reports are always admissible. 6. No evidence other than that presented at the hearing shall be considered by the Hearing Committee or have weight in the proceedings, except that the Hearing Committee may take notice of any judicially noticeable facts that are commonly known. Parties present at the hearing shall be informed of matters thus noticed, and each party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Hearing Committee's notice of such matters. 7. The Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure may, at its discretion, request the appointment of a qualied person or persons, designated by the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure, to provide legal advice and/or to assist in the organization and conduct of the hearing. 8. At the hearing, the Chancellor or Chancellor's designee has the burden of proving the allegations by clear and convincing evidence.

9. The Hearing Committee shall not have power to recommend the imposition of a sanction more severe than that proposed in the notice of proposed disciplinary action. In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend, the Hearing Committee may choose to consider previous charges against the accused if those charges led to prior sanctions either after a disciplinary hearing or pursuant to a negotiated or mediated resolution. 10. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee shall promptly make its ndings of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation, and forward these to the parties in the case, the Chancellor, the Chair of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The ndings, conclusions, recommendations, and record of the proceedings shall be condential to the extent allowed by law and UC policy. The Hearing Committee may, however, with the consent of the accused, authorize release of the ndings, conclusions, and recommendations to other individuals or entities, to the extent allowed by law. 11. The hearing shall be recorded. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to use a certied court reporter (whose cost is borne by the administration) for this purpose, and the parties and their representatives shall have the right to a copy of the recording or transcript. The cost of the copy shall be assumed by the requesting party.

12. The Hearing Committee may reconsider a case if either party presents, within a reasonable time after the decision, newly discovered facts or circumstances that might signicantly affect the previous decision and that were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the hearing. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 37E. Relation to Prior Grievance Cases A disciplinary Hearing Committee shall not be bound by the recommendation of another hearing body, including the ndings of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure in a grievance case involving the same set of incidents. However, the Hearing Committee may accept into evidence the ndings of another hearing body or investigative agency. The weight to be accorded evidence of this nature is at the discretion of the Hearing Committee and should take account of the nature of the other forum. In any case, the accused faculty member must be given full opportunity to challenge the ndings of the other body. 337. Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees -- Early Termination Cases (En 23 May 01) A. Jurisdiction (Am 10 Dec 2008) In cases of proposed termination of a Senate or non-Senate faculty member before the expiration of the faculty member's appointment, or in cases where a tenured faculty member faces termination for incompetent performance, or for other faculty members whose right to a hearing before a Senate

committee is given by Section 103.9 or 103.10 of the Standing Orders of The Regents (Appendix I) (hereafter collectively referred to as early termination), the faculty member may request a hearing before a Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee. The committee shall then conduct a hearing on the case to determine whether, in its judgment, the proposed early termination is for good cause and has been recommended in accordance with a procedure that does not violate the privileges of the faculty member. Resolution of the dispute, either through negotiation or mediation, is permissible and appropriate at any stage of these proceedings. No Senate or non-Senate faculty member may be terminated prior to the expiration of an appointment without having an opportunity for a hearing before the Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee. So long as the faculty member requests a hearing before the end of his or her appointment, the Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee shall appoint a Hearing Committee and proceed according to Section B below. If the faculty member fails to request a hearing before the end date of the appointment in question, the faculty member may seek a grievance hearing by grieving the nonreappointment pursuant to Senate Bylaw 335 in the case of Senate faculty or the Academic Personnel Manual in the case of non-Senate faculty. B. Hearing and Posthearing Procedures 1. The Privilege and Tenure Committee shall appoint a Hearing Committee for each early termination case for which a hearing is requested by a faculty member. The Hearing Committee should consist of at least three Division members. At least two of the members shall be

members of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, one of whom shall chair the Hearing Committee. The committee may not appoint a member of the department or equivalent administrative unit of the faculty member facing early termination to the Hearing Committee. Hearing Committee members shall disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case and recuse themselves as appropriate. A quorum for the conduct of the hearing shall consist of at least half but not less than three members of the Hearing Committee, including at least one member of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. 2. Prior to the formal hearing, the Chair of the Hearing Committee shall schedule a conference with both the faculty member and the Chancellor's designee, and/or their representatives. This conference should attempt to: a. Determine the facts about which there is no dispute. At the hearing, these facts may be established by stipulation. b. Dene the issues to be decided by the Hearing Committee. c. Set a time for both sides to exchange a list of witnesses and copies of exhibits to be presented at the hearing. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to limit each party to those witnesses whose names were disclosed to the other party prior to the hearing and to otherwise limit evidence to that which is relevant to the issues before the Hearing Committee. d. Specify whether prehearing and post-hearing briefs will be submitted by the parties as well as the deadlines for those briefs. UCSF Academic Senate

Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 38e. Attain agreement about whether any person other than the Chancellor, the Chancellor's designee, the faculty member, and their representatives may be present during all or part of the hearing. In order to preserve the condentiality of the hearing, persons whose presence is not essential to a determination of the facts shall, as a general rule, be excluded from the hearing. 3. The Chancellor's designee and the faculty member and/or their representatives shall be entitled to be present at all sessions of the Hearing Committee when evidence is being received and to select a representative who may act as counsel. Each party shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to present its case by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. 4. The hearing need not be conducted according to the technical legal rules relating to evidence and witnesses. The Hearing Committee may, upon an appropriate showing of need by any party or on its own initiative, request les and documents under the control of the administration. All condential information introduced into evidence, including the identity of condential sources of personnel evaluations, shall remain so within the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee may call witnesses or make evidentiary requests on its own volition. The Hearing Committee also has the discretion to require that all witnesses afrm the veracity of their testimony. 5. No evidence other than that presented at the hearing shall be considered by the Hearing

Committee or have weight in the proceedings, except that the Hearing Committee may take notice of any judicially noticeable facts that are commonly known. Parties present at the hearing shall be informed of matters thus noticed, and each party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Hearing Committee's notice of such matters. 6. The Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure may, at its discretion, request the appointment of a qualied person or persons, designated by the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure, to provide legal advice and/or to assist in the organization and conduct of the hearing. 7. At the hearing, the Chancellor's designee has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is good cause for early termination. In assessing the evidence for good cause, the Hearing Committee may consider evidence regarding whether correct procedures were followed in the case. 8. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee shall promptly make its ndings of fact, conclusions supported by a statement of reasons based on the evidence, and recommendation, and forward these to the parties in the case, the Chancellor, the Chair of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and the Chair of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The ndings, conclusions, recommendations, and record of the proceedings shall be condential to the extent allowed by law and UC policy. The Hearing Committee may, however, with the consent of the faculty member, authorize release of the

ndings, conclusions, and recommendations to other individuals or entities, to the extent allowed by law. 9. The hearing shall be recorded. The Hearing Committee has the discretion to use a certied court reporter (whose cost is borne by the administration) for this purpose, and the parties and their representatives shall have the right to a copy of the recording or transcript. The cost of the copy shall be assumed by the requesting party. 10. The Hearing Committee may reconsider a case if either party presents, within a reasonable time after the decision, newly discovered facts or circumstances that might signicantly affect the previous decision and that were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the hearing. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 39Academic Personnel Manual Provisions *Please note that this information is current as of November 2010 and is superceded by any subsequent revisions. The most up-to-date information can be found here: http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/sec1-pdf.html GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Rev. 7/24/03 The Faculty Code of Conduct This policy is the Faculty Code of Conduct as approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate on June 15, 1971, and amended by the Assembly on May 30, 1974, and with amendments approved by the Assembly on March 9,

1983, May 6, 1986, May 7, 1992, October 31, 2001, and May 28, 2003, and by The Regents on July 18, 1986, May 15, 1987, June 19, 1992, November 15, 2001, and July 17, 2003. In addition, technical changes were made September 1, 1988. Additional policies regarding the scope and application of the Faculty Code of Conduct and the Universitys policies on faculty conduct and the administration of discipline are set forth in APM - 016, the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline. The Faculty Code of Conduct as Approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate (Code of Professional Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct of University Faculty, and University Disciplinary Procedures) Preamble The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom. Effective performance of these central functions requires that faculty members be free within their respective fields of competence to pursue and teach the truth in accord with appropriate standards of scholarly inquiry. The facultys privileges and protections, including that of tenure, rest on the mutually supportive relationships between the facultys special professional competence, its academic freedom, and the central functions of the University. These relationships are also the source of the professional responsibilities of faculty members. It is the intent of the Faculty Code of Conduct to protect academic freedom, to help preserve the highest standards of teaching and scholarship, and to advance the mission of the University as an institution of higher learning. Part I of this Code sets forth the responsibility of the University to maintain conditions and rights supportive of the

facultys pursuit of the Universitys central functions. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 40GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 7/24/03 Page 1 This policy is the Faculty Code of Conduct as approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate on June 15, 1971, and amended by the Assembly on May 30, 1974, and with amendments approved by the Assembly on March 9, 1983, May 6, 1986, May 7, 1992, October 31, 2001, and May 28, 2003, and by The Regents on July 18, 1986, May 15, 1987, June 19, 1992, November 15, 2001, and July 17, 2003. In addition, technical changes were made September 1, 1988. Additional policies regarding the scope and application of the Faculty Code of Conduct and the Universitys policies on faculty conduct and the administration of discipline are set forth in APM - 016, the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline. The Faculty Code of Conduct as Approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate (Code of Professional Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct of University Faculty, and University Disciplinary Procedures) Preamble

The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom. Effective performance of these central functions requires that faculty members be free within their respective fields of competence to pursue and teach the truth in accord with appropriate standards of scholarly inquiry. The facultys privileges and protections, including that of tenure, rest on the mutually supportive relationships between the facultys special professional competence, its academic freedom, and the central functions of the University. These relationships are also the source of the professional responsibilities of faculty members. It is the intent of the Faculty Code of Conduct to protect academic freedom, to help preserve the highest standards of teaching and scholarship, and to advance the mission of the University as an institution of higher learning. Part I of this Code sets forth the responsibility of the University to maintain conditions and rights supportive of the facultys pursuit of the Universitys central functions. 41GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 1/1/02 Page 2 Part II of this Code elaborates standards of professional conduct, derived from general

professional consensus about the existence of certain precepts as basic to acceptable faculty behavior. Conduct which departs from these precepts is viewed by faculty as unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the mission of the University. The articulation of types of unacceptable faculty conduct is appropriate both to verify that a consensus about minimally acceptable standards in fact does exist and to give fair notice to all that departures from these minimal standards may give rise to disciplinary proceedings. In Part II a clear distinction is made between statements of (1) ethical principles and (2) types of unacceptable behavior. 1. Ethical Principles These are drawn primarily from the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics and subsequent revisions of June, 1987, issued by the American Association of University Professors. They comprise ethical prescriptions affirming the highest professional ideals. They are aspirational in character, and represent objectives toward which faculty members should strive. Behavior in accordance with these principles clearly precludes the application of a disciplinary sanction. These Ethical Principles are to be distinguished from Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conductreferred to in the following paragraph. The Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conduct, unlike the Ethical Principles, are mandatory in character, and state minimum levels of conduct below which a faculty member cannot fall without being subject to University discipline. 2. Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conduct Derived from the Ethical Principles, these statements specify examples of types of

unacceptable faculty behavior which are subject to University discipline because, as stated in the introductory section to Part II, they are not justified by the Ethical Principles and they significantly impair the Universitys central functions as set forth in the Preamble. The Ethical Principles encompass major concerns traditionally and currently important to the profession. The examples of types of unacceptable faculty conduct set forth below are not exhaustive. It is expected that case adjudication, the lessons of experience and evolving standards of the profession will promote reasoned adaptation and change of this Code. Faculty may be subjected to disciplinary action under this Code for any type of conduct which, although not specifically enumerated herein, meets the standard for unacceptable faculty behavior set forth above. It should be noted, however, that no provision of the Code shall be construed as providing the basis for judging the propriety or impropriety of collective withholding of services by faculty. Rules and sanctions that presently exist to cover such actions derive from sources external to this Code. 42GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 1/1/02 Page 3 Part III of this Code deals with the enforcement process applicable to unacceptable faculty

behavior. That process must meet basic standards of fairness and must reflect significant faculty involvement. In order to guide each campus in the development of disciplinary procedures that comply with this policy and Senate Bylaws, Part III provides an outline of mandatory principles to which each Division must adhere and discretionary principles which are strongly recommended. Part I Professional Rights of Faculty In support of the Universitys central functions as an institution of higher learning, a major responsibility of the administration is to protect and encourage the faculty in its teaching, learning, research, and public service. The authority to discipline faculty members in appropriate cases derives from the shared recognition by the faculty and the administration that the purpose of discipline is to preserve conditions hospitable to these pursuits. Such conditions, as they relate to the faculty, include, for example: 1. free inquiry, and exchange of ideas; 2. the right to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction; 3. enjoyment of constitutionally protected freedom of expression; 4. participation in the governance of the University, as provided in the Bylaws and Standing Orders of The Regents and the regulations of the University, including (a) approval of course content and manner of instruction, (b) establishment of requirements for matriculation and for degrees, (c) appointment and promotion of faculty, (d) selection of chairs of departments and certain academic administrators,

(e) discipline of members of the faculty, and the formulation of rules and procedures for discipline of students, (f) establishment of norms for teaching responsibilities and for evaluation of both faculty and student achievement, and (g) determination of the forms of departmental governance; 43GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 7/24/03 Page 4 5. the right to be judged by ones colleagues, in accordance with fair procedures and due process, in matters of promotion, tenure, and discipline, solely on the basis of the faculty members professional qualifications and professional conduct. Part II Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct This listing of faculty responsibilities, ethical principles, and types of unacceptable behavior is organized around the individual faculty members relation to teaching and students, to scholarship, to the University, to colleagues, and to the community. Since University discipline, as distinguished from other forms of reproval or administrative actions, should be reserved for faculty misconduct that is either serious in itself or is made serious through its repetition, or its consequences, the following general principle is intended to govern all instances of its application: University discipline under this Code may be imposed on a faculty member only for conduct which is not justified by the ethical principles and which significantly

impairs the Universitys central functions as set forth in the Preamble. To the extent that violations of University policies mentioned in the examples below are not also inconsistent with the ethical principles, these policy violations may not be independent grounds for imposing discipline as defined herein. The Types of Unacceptable Conduct listed below in Sections A through E are examples of types of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively subject to University discipline. Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also meet the preceding standards. A. Teaching and Students Ethical Principles. As teachers, the professors encourage the free pursuit of learning of their students. They hold before them the best scholarly standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that their evaluations of students reflect each students true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom. (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987) 44GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 7/24/03 Page 5 The integrity of the faculty-student relationship is the foundation of the Universitys

educational mission. This relationship vests considerable trust in the faculty member, who, in turn, bears authority and accountability as mentor, educator, and evaluator. The unequal institutional power inherent in this relationship heightens the vulnerability of the student and the potential for coercion. The pedagogical relationship between faculty member and student must be protected from influences or activities that can interfere with learning consistent with the goals and ideals of the University. Whenever a faculty member is responsible for academic supervision of a student, a personal relationship between them of a romantic or sexual nature, even if consensual, is inappropriate. Any such relationship jeopardizes the integrity of the educational process. In this section, the term student refers to all individuals under the academic supervision of faculty. Types of unacceptable conduct: 1. Failure to meet the responsibilities of instruction, including: (a) arbitrary denial of access to instruction; (b) significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course; (c) significant failure to adhere, without legitimate reason, to the rules of the faculty in the conduct of courses, to meet class, to keep office hours, or to hold examinations as scheduled; (d) evaluation of student work by criteria not directly reflective of course performance; (e) undue and unexcused delay in evaluating student work. 2. Discrimination, including harassment, against a student on political grounds, or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, national

origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition, status as a covered veteran, or, within the limits imposed by law or University regulations, because of age or citizenship or for other arbitrary or personal reasons. 3. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying to nondiscrimination against students on the basis of disability. 45GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct 1 A faculty member should reasonably expect to have in the future academic responsibility (instructional, evaluative, or supervisory) for (1) students whose academic program will require them to enroll in a course taught by the faculty member, (2) students known to the faculty member to have an interest in an academic area within the faculty members academic expertise, or (3) any student for whom a faculty member must have academic responsibility (instructional, evaluative, or supervisory) in the pursuit of a degree. Rev. 7/24/03 Page 6 4. Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal reasons. 5. Participating in or deliberately abetting disruption, interference, or intimidation in the classroom. 6. Entering into a romantic or sexual relationship with any student for whom a faculty member has, or should reasonably expect to have in the future1 , academic responsibility (instructional, evaluative, or supervisory).

7. Exercising academic responsibility (instructional, evaluative, or supervisory) for any student with whom a faculty member has a romantic or sexual relationship. B. Scholarship Ethical Principles. Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry. (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987) Types of unacceptable conduct: Violation of canons of intellectual honesty, such as research misconduct and/or intentional misappropriation of the writings, research, and findings of others. 46GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 1/1/02 Page 7 C. The University Ethical Principles. As a member of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic

freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of the work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions. (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987) Types of unacceptable conduct: 1. Intentional disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the University. 2. Incitement of others to disobey University rules when such incitement constitutes a clear and present danger that violence or abuse against persons or property will occur or that the Universitys central functions will be significantly impaired. 3. Unauthorized use of University resources or facilities on a significant scale for personal, commercial, political, or religious purposes. 4. Forcible detention, threats of physical harm to, or harassment of another member of the University community, that interferes with that persons performance of University activities. 5. Discrimination, including harassment, against University employees on political grounds, or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, national origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition, status as a covered veteran or, within the limits imposed by law or University regulations, because of age or citizenship, or for other arbitrary or personal reasons. 6. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying to nondiscrimination against employees on the basis of disability. 7. Serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of

faculty, including but not limited to policies applying to research, outside professional activities, conflicts of commitment, clinical practices, violence in the workplace, and whistleblower protections. 47GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 1/1/02 Page 8 D. Colleagues Ethical Principles. As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debts and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution. (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987) Types of unacceptable conduct: 1. Making evaluations of the professional competence of faculty members by criteria not directly reflective of professional performance. 2. Discrimination, including harassment, against faculty on political grounds, or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, national origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition, status as a covered veteran, or, within the limits imposed by law or University regulations, because of age or citizenship or for other arbitrary or personal reasons. 3. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying to nondiscrimination against faculty on the basis of disability. 4. Breach of established rules governing confidentiality in personnel procedures.

E. The Community Ethical Principles. Faculty members have the same rights and obligations as all citizens. They are as free as other citizens to express their views and to participate in the political processes of the community. When they act or speak in their personal and private capacities, they should avoid deliberately creating the impression that they represent the University. (U.C. Academic Council Statement, 1971) Types of unacceptable conduct: 1. Intentional misrepresentation of personal views as a statement of position of the University or any of its agencies. (An institutional affiliation appended to a faculty members name in a public statement or appearance is permissible, if used solely for purposes of identification.) 48GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 1/1/02 Page 9 2. Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty. Part III Enforcement and Sanctions The Assembly of the Academic Senate recommends that each Division, in cooperation with the campus administration, develop and periodically re-examine procedures dealing with the investigation of allegations of faculty misconduct and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Procedures shall be consistent with the Bylaws of the Academic Senate. Each Division should duly notify the University Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction and the University

Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the procedures it has adopted and any subsequent changes therein. These Committees in turn are directed to report periodically to the Assembly of the Academic Senate on procedures adopted by the Divisions and to recommend to the Assembly such action as they deem appropriate for assuring compliance with the Bylaws of the Academic Senate or the promotion of uniformity among Divisions to the extent to which it appears necessary and desirable. A. In the development of disciplinary procedures, each Division must adhere to the following principles: 1. No disciplinary sanction for professional misconduct shall be imposed by the administration except in accordance with specified campus procedures adopted after appropriate consultation with agencies of the Academic Senate, as prescribed in the introduction to this part of the Code. Systemwide procedures for the conduct of disciplinary hearings are set forth in Academic Senate Bylaw 336. 2. No disciplinary sanction shall be imposed until after the faculty member has had an opportunity for a hearing before the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure, subsequent to a filing of a charge by the appropriate administrative officer, as described in Academic Senate Bylaw 336. 3. No disciplinary action may commence if more than three years have passed between the time when the Chancellor knew or should have known about the alleged violation of the Faculty Code ofConduct and the delivery of the notice of proposed disciplinary action. 49GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct

Rev. 1/1/02 Page 10 4. The Chancellor may not initiate notice of proposed disciplinary action unless there has been a finding of probable cause. The probable cause standard means that the facts as alleged in the complaint, if true, justify the imposition of discipline for a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct and that the Chancellor is satisfied that the University can produce credible evidence to support the claim. In cases where the Chancellor wants a disciplinary action to proceed, the Divisional hearing committee must hold a hearing and make findings on the evidence presented unless the accused faculty member settles the matter with the Chancellor prior to the hearing or explicitly waives his or her right to a hearing. 5. The procedures adopted shall include designation of the following disciplinary sanctions authorized in the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline, of which this Faculty Code of Conduct is an integral part: written censure, reduction in salary, demotion, suspension, denial or curtailment of emeritus status, and dismissal from the employ of the University. The Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall not recommend the imposition of a sanction more severe than that in the notice of proposed disciplinary action. More than one disciplinary sanction may be imposed for a single act of misconduct, e.g. a letter of censure and a suspension. B. In the development of disciplinary procedures, it is recommended that each Division adhere to the following principles: 1. In order to facilitate the efficient and timely handling of disciplinary matters, it is recommended that procedures be developed that allow each Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure to sit in hearing panels smaller than the full committee. 2. There should be an appropriate mechanism for consideration and investigation of allegations of misconduct received from members of the faculty, staff, students, the administration, and other members of the University community. Procedures should be developed which encourage a single formal investigation of the allegations leading to the proposed disciplinary action.

3. Because it is desirable that the faculty meaningfully participate in its own self-discipline, and in order to provide the administration with faculty advice in the beginning stages of what may become formal disciplinary proceedings, appropriate procedures should be developed to involve the faculty in participating in the investigation of allegations of misconduct and/or in making recommendations to appropriate administrative officers whether a disciplinary charge should be filed. Divisions are encouraged to develop procedures to 50GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 1/1/02 Page 11 provide faculty investigators with training, consultation, or legal counsel to assist with the investigation of faculty disciplinary cases. 4. There should be provision for informal disposition of allegations of faculty misconduct before formal disciplinary proceedings are instituted. Procedures should be developed for mediation of cases where mediation is viewed as acceptable by the Chancellor and the faculty member accused of misconduct. Mediators should be trained in mediation, be regarded as neutral third parties and have experience in the University environment. In cases where a settlement resolving disciplinary charges is entered into after a matter has been referred to an Academic Senate committee, the Chancellor is encouraged to consult with the Chair of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure prior to finalizing the settlement. 5. Appropriate precautions should be taken to safeguard the confidentiality of investigative and disciplinary proceedings. Procedures should be developed that allow information about an ongoing disciplinary proceeding, including information about the outcome, to be shared with complainant(s), to the extent allowable by State law and University policy. 6. There should be provision, to the maximum feasible extent, for separating investigative and judicial functions. A faculty member who has participated in investigating an allegation of misconduct or in recommending that a charge

should be filed should thereafter not participate, as a member of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, in the hearing of that charge. 7. In the implementation of all procedures, specific provisions should be made for the time span within which certain actions may or must be taken. Every effort should be made to conform to reasonable, specified time frames. Ideally, a hearing should commence within 90 days of the date on which the accused faculty member has been notified of the intention to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. A faculty member who is entitled to a hearing should not be permitted thereafter to delay imposition of discipline by refusing to cooperate or being unavailable for a scheduled hearing. A hearing shall not be postponed because the faculty member is on leave or fails to appear. 8. There should be consideration of provision for the availability of removal or termination of a sanction, either automatically or by administrative discretion, in individual cases. The nature and circumstances of the offense should determine the severity and type of discipline. 51GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES The Faculty Code of Conduct Rev. 1/1/02 Page 12 9. Procedures should be developed for keeping records of disciplinary matters in a confidential manner and sharing such records with Senate and administrative officers with a need to know in accordance with State law and University policy. 52GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 016 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline 1/1/02 Page 1 University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline The University policy on faculty conduct and the administration of discipline is set forth in its entirety in this policy and in the Faculty Code of Conduct.

Section I Introduction and General Policy This policy, as recommended by the President of the University and approved by The Regents on June 14, 1974, and November 15, 2001, supersedes the Presidents interim statement on the same subject, issued on January 15, 1971. The present policy is to be read in conjunction with the Faculty Code of Conduct. The Faculty Code of Conduct is set forth in APM - 015. Part I of the Faculty Code of Conduct notes the responsibility of the administration to preserve conditions that protect and encourage the faculty in its central pursuits. Part II defines normative conditions for faculty conduct and sets forth types of unacceptable faculty conduct subject to University discipline. Part III makes recommendations and proposes guidelines to assure the development of fair procedures for enforcing the Code. Nothing in the Faculty Code of Conduct, or in this policy, is intended to change the various authorities and responsibilities of the Academic Senate, the administration, and The Regents as currently set forth in the Standing Orders of The Regents, the policies and regulations of the University, and the Bylaws and Regulations of the Academic Senate. The Faculty Code of Conduct explicitly does not deal with policies, procedures, or possible sanctions pertaining to strikes by members of the faculty. These are covered by Regental and administrative policies external to the Code.

Except for the matter of strikes, and with recognition that Part III of the Faculty Code of Conduct consists of mandatory principles and recommendations to the Divisions of the Academic Senate and the campus administrations, the Faculty Code of Conduct, as set forth in APM - 015, is the official basis for imposing discipline on members of the faculty for professional misconduct. With respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Faculty Code of Conduct deals only with the professional responsibilities, ethical principles, and standards of conduct that pertain to the professional obligations of faculty members. No disciplinary sanctions 53GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 016 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline 1/1/02 Page 2 described in this policy may be imposed on faculty members other than through the procedures pursuant to this policy and the Faculty Code of Conduct. In addition, faculty members may be subject to certain administrative actions which are outside the scope of faculty discipline. For example, like all other members of the University community, faculty members are subject to the general rules and regulations of the University such as those pertaining to parking, library privileges, health and safety, and use of University facilities.

Faculty are subject to appropriate administrative actions for failure to comply with such rules and regulations. Another example applies to faculty members serving in administrative appointments who are subject to administrative actions for misconduct in their role as administrators. Faculty members serving in administrative roles may be subject to disciplinary sanctions under this policy in addition to administrative actions, if the faculty members misconduct in the role of an administrator also violates the ethical and professional standards for faculty set forth in the Faculty Code of Conduct. To maintain consistency in the future between the Faculty Code of Conduct, if it should be further amended by the Academic Senate, and any new or changed Regental or administrative policies relating to faculty conduct that might be adopted, the President will consult with appropriate agencies of the Academic Senate, and will undertake to facilitate any needed joint action by the Senate and The Regents or the administration. Authority for discipline derives from The Regents. The Regents have made the Chancellor of each campus responsible for discipline on the campus (Standing Order 100.6(a)), subject to certain procedures and safeguards involving the President and the Academic Senate (Standing Orders 100.4(c) and 103.9 and 103.10). This policy regarding faculty discipline requires a spirit of active cooperation between the administration, as embodied by the Chancellor, and the Academic Senate. In case of disagreement between the administration and the faculty over the interpretation or

application of the Faculty Code of Conduct, conflicts will be resolved on a caseby-case basis, with the fullest consideration given to peer judgments achieved through procedures for discipline. In cases where a Chancellors tentative decision regarding the imposition of discipline on a faculty member disagrees with the recommendation of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure, the Chancellor shall inform the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure in writing that he or she may disagree and ask if the Chair would like the Chancellor to meet with the Chair or with the whole committee prior to making a final decision or recommendation. Disciplinary action is to be distinguished from certain other administrative actions taken as the result, not of willful misconduct but rather, for example, of disability or incompetence. The administration naturally bears the responsibility of assuring that the Universitys resources are used productively and appropriately. In meeting this responsibility, administrators must occasionally take actions which resemble certain disciplinary sanctions 54GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 016 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline 1/1/02 Page 3 but which are actually of an entirely different character. These actions are subject to separate

procedures with due process guarantees and should not be confused with disciplinary action with its implications of culpability and sanction. APM - 075 on Termination for Incompetent Performance articulates the conditions under which faculty members with tenure or security of employment may be terminated for incompetent performance Section II Types of Disciplinary Sanctions The types of discipline that may be imposed on a member of the faculty are as follows, in order of increasing severity: written censure, reduction in salary, demotion, suspension, denial or curtailment of emeritus status, and dismissal from the employ of the University. In any disciplinary proceeding, the Chancellor may not impose a type of discipline more severe than that which was set forth in a written notice of proposed disciplinary action to the faculty member. The Chancellor may impose additional appropriate remedial or corrective sanctions not set forth in this Code only with the consent of the accused faculty member. More than one disciplinary sanction may be imposed for a single act of misconduct, e.g. a letter of censure and a suspension. The Chancellor may remove or terminate a sanction, either automatically or by administrative discretion, in individual cases. The severity and type of discipline selected for a particular offense must be appropriately related to the nature and circumstances of the case.

1. Written Censure A formal written expression of institutional rebuke that contains a brief description of the censured conduct, conveyed by the Chancellor. Written censure is to be distinguished from an informal written or spoken warning, and must be delivered confidentially to the recipient and maintained in a designated personnel file or files indefinitely or for a lesser period of time specified in the writing. Informal written or spoken warning is not an official disciplinary action. 2. Reduction in Salary Reduction to lower salary without change in rank or step. The authority to reduce the salary of any faculty member rests with the Chancellor. This authority may not be redelegated. The amount and duration of the reduced salary shall be specified. 3. Demotion Reduction to lower rank or step with corresponding reduction in salary. Demotion as a disciplinary action should be imposed in a manner consistent with the merit based 55GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 016 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline 1/1/02 Page 4 system for advancement. Generally, demotion is an appropriate sanction when the misconduct is relevant to the academic advancement process of the faculty member. The authority to reduce the rank of a faculty member who does not have tenure or security of employment rests with the Chancellor. The authority to reduce, within rank, the step of any faculty member to a lower step rests with the Chancellor. This authority

may not be redelegated. Authority for demoting a faculty member with tenure or with security of employment to a lower rank, also with tenure or with security of employment, rests with the President, on recommendation of the Chancellor. Demotion of a faculty member with tenure or with security of employment to a lower rank without tenure or security of employment is not an option. 4. Suspension Suspension of a faculty member without pay for some stated period of time from the continuance of the appointment on its normal terms. Unless otherwise noted, the terms of a suspension will include loss of normal faculty privileges such as access to University property, participation in departmental governance, voting rights, administration of grants, supervision of graduate students, and use of University administrative staff, and may include loss of other campus privileges such as parking and library privileges. The degree and duration of the suspension shall be specified. Authority for the suspension of a faculty member rests with the Chancellor and may not be redelegated. Suspension as a disciplinary action is to be distinguished from involuntary leave, which is a precautionary action. 5. Denial or Curtailment of Emeritus Status Denial or curtailment of current or future emeritus status of a faculty member, including the privileges associated with the emeritus status. The denial or curtailment of emeritus

status does not affect the faculty members entitlement to earned retirement benefits. Authority for the denial or curtailment of emeritus status of a faculty member rests with the President, on recommendation of the Chancellor. 6. Dismissal from the Employ of the University The Chancellor has authority to dismiss a faculty member who does not have tenure or security of employment. This authority may not be redelegated. Authority for dismissal of a faculty member who has tenure or security of employment rests with The Regents, on recommendation of the President, following consultation with the Chancellor. 56GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 016 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline 1/1/02 Page 5 Prior to the imposition of any disciplinary sanction(s) as described above, the Chancellor may waive or limit any or all disciplinary sanction(s) on the condition that the accused faculty member performs some specified action(s) designed to address the harm and/or to prevent future harm. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, monetary restitution, repayment of misappropriated resources, compliance with a commitment not to repeat the misconduct, or other act to make whole injury caused by the faculty members professional misconduct or to prevent future misconduct.

If the imposition of a disciplinary sanction is waived, the subsequent failure to perform the required act or otherwise comply with the conditions of the waiver will immediately subject the faculty member to the implementation of the underlying sanction without an additional hearing. The authority to determine whether the faculty member has complied with the conditions of the waiver rests with the Chancellor. The Chancellor may designate a fixed time period for compliance with the terms of the waiver, after which the authority to impose discipline will lapse. If a faculty member disputes the Chancellors determination, the faculty member may grieve under applicable faculty grievance procedures. A Chancellor is authorized to initiate involuntary leave with pay prior to the initiation of a disciplinary action if it is found that there is a strong risk that the accused faculty members continued assignment to regular duties or presence on campus will cause immediate and serious harm to the University community or impede the investigation of his or her wrongdoing, or in situations where the faculty members conduct represents a serious crime or felony that is the subject of investigation by a law enforcement agency. When such action is necessary, it must be possible to impose the involuntary leave swiftly, without resorting to normal disciplinary procedures. In rare and egregious cases, a Chancellor may be authorized

by special action of The Regents to suspend the pay of a faculty member on involuntary leave pending a disciplinary action. This is in addition to the Chancellors power to suspend the pay of a faculty member who is absent without authorization and fails to perform his or her duties for an extended period of time, pending the resolution of the faculty members employment status with the University. However, within 10 working days after the imposition of involuntary leave, the Chancellor must explain to the faculty member in writing the reasons for the involuntary leave and initiate disciplinary procedures by bringing charges against the faculty member on leave. Thereafter, the faculty member may grieve the decision to place him or her on involuntary leave pursuant to applicable faculty grievance procedures. The Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall handle such grievances on an expedited basis and may recommend reinstatement of pay and back pay in cases where pay status was suspended. 57GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 016 REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline 1/1/02 Page 6 Section III Procedures for Imposition of Disciplinary Sanction Safeguards against arbitrary or unjust disciplinary actions, including provision for hearings and appeals, are well established in the University.

The Standing Orders provide that actions of certain types, some of them disciplinary in character, may not be carried out without the opportunity of a prior hearing before, or without advance consultation with, a properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate (Standing Orders 100.4(c), 103.9 and 103.10). The Academic Senate has established Committees on Privilege and Tenure in each of the nine Divisions. The composition and duties of these committees are defined by the Academic Senate. One of the traditional roles of the Divisional Committees on Privilege and Tenure is to conduct hearings on disciplinary charges initiated by the Chancellor under this policy and make findings of fact and recommendations to the Chancellor regarding proposed disciplinary sanctions. The procedures for disciplinary hearings are set forth in Academic Senate Bylaw 336. Another traditional role, to be distinguished from the conduct of disciplinary hearings, is to consider grievances by members of the Academic Senate regarding their rights and privileges as faculty members. The procedures for considering grievances are set forth in Academic Senate Bylaw 335. A disciplinary action is distinguished from a grievance action in that a disciplinary action generally is commenced by the administration against a faculty member based on charges that the faculty member has violated the Faculty Code of Conduct.

A grievance action is initiated by a faculty member who believes that he or she has suffered injury as the result of a violation of the faculty members rights or privileges. A grievance action specifically requests the administration to take appropriate action to eliminate or mitigate the faculty members injury. A grievance alleging misconduct by another member of the Academic Senate may result in disciplinary proceedings commenced against that faculty member. The Faculty Code of Conduct applies to all faculty members, Senate and nonSenate. For members of the Academic Senate, the procedures for disciplinary actions are governed by Senate Bylaws and Divisional rules. For academic appointees who are not members of the Academic Senate (and this group includes certain categories of faculty members) there are procedures for disciplinary actions separate from that of the Senates committees. Those procedures are found in APM - 150 and relevant collective bargaining agreements or Memoranda of Understanding. The Faculty Code of Conduct also applies to faculty members holding administrative appointments. Faculty members serving as administrators may be subjected to disciplinary action under this Code for professional misconduct in their administrative role that violates 58GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 016

REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline 1/1/02 Page 7 the ethical principles and falls within the types of unacceptable conduct set forth in this Code. A disciplinary action against a faculty member holding an administrative title may proceed in two parts. One part involves the removal of an administrative title or other administrative action under procedures established by The Regents and the administration. Such action need not adhere to the disciplinary procedures setforth in this policy. The other part involves the proposed imposition of any type of disciplinary sanction set forth in this policy, which must proceed in accordance with the procedures for discipline outlined in the Faculty Code of Conduct and the applicable Senate Bylaws and Divisional rules. The removal of the administrative title or other administrative action does not preclude or require the imposition of a disciplinary sanction under this policy. Administrative incompetence does not in itself constitute a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct. It is the responsibility of each Chancellor to establish procedures for the administration of discipline on the campus, in consultation with the campus Division of the Academic Senate and such other advisory groups as are appropriate. No disciplinary sanction for professional

misconduct shall be imposed except in accordance with specified procedures. It is not essential that the procedures be identical on every campus. It is important, however, that the same basic principles and standards prevail throughout the University. Requirements and recommendations for developing campus disciplinary procedures pursuant to this policy are set forth in the Faculty Code of Conduct and the Senate Bylaws. Chancellors are to keep the President informed about campus procedures and to report any significant changes made in such procedures. The President will consult periodically with the Chancellors and the Academic Senate about procedures that are being employed in order to assure equitable standards for discipline throughout the University. 59GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 1 140-0 Policy This policy provides non-Senate academic appointees the opportunity to present grievances. The use of this policy shall not be discouraged by the University either directly or indirectly. 140-4 Scope/Definition a. A grievance is defined as a complaint by an eligible non-Senate academic appointee that alleges that: (1) a specific administrative act was arbitrary or capricious and adversely affected the appointees then-existing terms or conditions of appointment; and/or

(2) a violation of applicable University rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies occurred which adversely affected the appointees then-existing terms or conditions of appointment. b. For the purposes of this policy, an act is not arbitrary or capricious if the decision-maker exercised reasoned judgment. c. A grievance alleging a violation of APM - 137 (Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Term Appointment), 145 (Non-Senate Academic Appointees/ Layoff and Involuntary Reduction in Time), or 150 (Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Corrective Action and Dismissal) shall be filed under APM - 140-4-a(2) only. 140-6 Responsibility a. It is the responsibility of each Chancellor to establish and publish procedures to implement this policy. Prior to planned issuance, such procedures should be submitted to the Provost and Senior Vice PresidentAcademic Affairs for approval. b. Each Chancellor shall designate an administrator or office as the grievance liaison for academic appointees. 60GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 7/1/03 Page 2 140-14 Eligibility a. This policy applies to all academic appointees of the University who are not members of the Academic Senate except as provided in APM - 140-14-b, -c, and -d. For non-Senate academic appointees covered by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), this policy applies only to the extent provided for in the MOU. b. APM - 140 does not apply to Postdoctoral Scholars (see APM - 390). c. Under this policy, student academic appointees not covered by an MOU shall only be eligible to grieve matters related to their academic appointment. Complaints pertaining to academic standing or non-employment-related

matters are under the jurisdiction of applicable student grievance or academic appeal procedures. d. Housestaff (interns and residents) shall be eligible to use APM - 140 unless alternative policies and procedures are instituted by the campus. e. When a non-Senate faculty member receives notice of termination before the expiration of his or her appointment, he or she may select as a grievance mechanism either APM - 140, as described in this policy, or Section 103.9 of the Standing Orders of The Regents (S.O. 103.9), the procedures of which are described in Academic Senate Bylaw 337. In selecting either APM - 140 or S.O. 103.9, the non-Senate faculty member waives the right to invoke the other mechanism to review the same grievance. 140-15 Mediation The intent of this policy is to encourage voluntary resolution including mediation when it is desired by both parties. Each campus is encouraged to implement a mediation process to facilitate voluntary resolution of grievances. 140-23 Filing Deadlines a. A Step II formal grievance must be filed in writing with the grievance liaison within thirty (30) calendar days from the date on which the appointee knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, of the event or act which gave rise to the grievance, or within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of separation, whichever is earlier. 61GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 3 b. A Step III formal grievance appeal must be filed in writing with the grievance liaison within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date on which the Step II response is issued. c. Filing deadlines shall apply unless a written extension has been granted by the grievance liaison. Either party may submit a written request for an extension to a filing deadline. It is the responsibility of the grievant to file a Step II

formal grievance or a Step III formal grievance appeal by the filing deadline or to file a written request for an extension before the filing deadline. 140-31 Step I Informal Grievance Resolution a. Step I of the grievance process is the attempt at informal resolution. Prior to filing a Step II formal grievance, the grievant is encouraged to attempt an informal resolution with the immediate supervisor or responsible administrator whose action is being grieved. Attempts at informal resolution do not extend the time limits for filing a formal grievance unless a written extension is granted by the grievance liaison. b. If informal resolution with the immediate supervisor or responsible administrator is attempted but unsuccessful, a grievant may request that the grievance liaison assist in resolving the grievance. Where appropriate, the grievance liaison may work with the parties to reach an informal resolution. c. When a grievance alleges sexual harassment, the grievant may elect to substitute the campus Sexual Harassment Complaint Resolution Procedure as Step I. If a grievant selects this mechanism and the complaint is not resolved to the grievants satisfaction, he or she may file a Step II formal grievance in writing with the grievance liaison within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date the grievant is notified of the result of the pre-grievance complaint resolution process of the sexual harassment procedure or within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date the grievant filed the sexual harassment complaint, whichever is earlier. 140-32 Step II Formal Grievance Review a. If a grievance is not resolved informally to the satisfaction of the grievant, the grievant may file a Step II formal grievance. A Step II grievance must be filed in writing with the grievance liaison within the thirty (30) calendar-day period specified in APM - 140-23-a unless a written extension has been granted by 62GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 4

the grievance liaison. Except by written mutual agreement of the parties, no additional issues shall be introduced after the Step II grievance has been filed. Attempts at informal resolution do not extend the time limits for filing a formal grievance unless a written extension is granted by the grievance liaison. Attempts at informal resolution may continue after a formal grievance has been filed, but are not required. b. The formal written grievance must include the following information. (1) If the grievance alleges that a specific administrative act was arbitrary or capricious and adversely affected the grievants then-existing terms or conditions of appointment, the grievance must state the specific administrative act(s) to be reviewed, the name of the person(s) alleged to have carried out the administrative act(s), the date(s) the alleged act(s) occurred, and a description of how the administrative act(s) were arbitrary or capricious. (2) If the grievance alleges that a violation of applicable University rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies occurred which adversely affected the grievants then-existing terms or conditions of appointment, the grievance must state the applicable University rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies the grievant believes have been violated; the name of the person(s) alleged to have violated the applicable University rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies; the date(s) the alleged violation(s) occurred; and a description of how the rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies have been violated. (3) All grievances must state how the alleged act(s) and/or violation(s) adversely affected the grievants then-existing terms or conditions of appointment and the remedy requested. c. Upon receipt of a formal written grievance, the grievance liaison shall complete an initial review of the grievance and determine whether the grievance is complete, timely, within the jurisdiction of APM - 140, and contains sufficient facts which support the allegations made in the grievance. Within ten (10) calendar days, the grievance liaison shall notify the grievant in

writing of the acceptance of the grievance. If the grievance is not accepted, the reasons shall be specified as follows: (1) If the grievance liaison determines that the grievance is incomplete or factually insufficient, the grievant will have ten (10) calendar days from the date of the written notice to provide information to make the 63GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 5 grievance complete, including additional facts. If the grievant fails to make the grievance complete or provide sufficient facts, the grievance will be dismissed. (2) If the grievance liaison determines that the grievance is untimely or outside the jurisdiction of APM - 140, the grievance will be dismissed. (3) If the grievance raises multiple issues, the grievance liaison will make a determination described above with regard to each issue. The grievance liaison may accept some issues and dismiss others pursuant to this review process. (4) If all or part of a grievance is dismissed at this stage, the grievance liaison will provide the grievant with a written explanation of the basis for the dismissal. d. When a formal written grievance is accepted, the grievance liaison shall forward the grievance and any supportive materials to the Step II reviewer for review and written decision, and notify the Step II reviewer and the grievant of the date the Step II response is due. Generally, the Step II reviewer will be the department or unit head. However, if the department or unit head took the action which is being grieved, the grievance liaison may exercise discretion and designate another administrator as the Step II reviewer, and so notify the department or unit head and the grievant. e. If a Step II grievance raises allegations of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of APM - 035, the grievance liaison shall forward a

copy of the grievance to the appropriate campus compliance office for review, such as the office handling affirmative action/equal employment opportunity matters. Each campus shall implement procedures for the investigation of such grievances under this policy which include procedures for coordination with the relevant campus compliance offices such as Title IX, Title VII, ADA, and/or Affirmative Action. The results of any related grievances or investigations shall be provided to the grievance liaison. At the discretion of the grievance liaison, information regarding related grievances or investigations may be forwarded to the Step II reviewer for consideration in making a Step II decision. f. The Step II reviewer shall review the grievance and, if appropriate, shall investigate and/or meet with the parties. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the formal grievance, the Step II reviewer shall send a written response to the grievant and the grievance liaison. The response will 64GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 6 include a statement that the grievance is denied or upheld in whole or in part and that the grievant has the right to appeal the decision to Step III of the grievance procedure. 140-33 Step III Formal Grievance Appeal a. A formal grievance not resolved to the satisfaction of the grievant at Step II may be appealed in writing to Step III with the grievance liaison within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date on which the Step II response is issued. The Step III formal grievance appeal must set forth the unresolved issue(s) and the remedy requested. Except by written mutual agreement of the parties, no issues shall be introduced in the appeal that were not included in the original grievance. b. All formal grievance appeals will be subject to Step III-A administrative consideration unless there is a written request for Step III-B hearing

consideration and the issue(s) appealed are subject to Step III-B hearing consideration. (1) Step III-A Administrative Consideration (a) Except when otherwise eligible for hearing consideration, within seven (7) calendar days from receipt of a formal grievance appeal, the grievance liaison shall forward the appeal, the Step II formal grievance, and the Step II response to the Chancellor for review and written decision. (b) Based on the record, the Chancellor shall determine whether the Step II formal grievance was properly reviewed and whether the decision made at Step II shall be upheld, rejected, or modified. (c) The Chancellor shall provide a final written decision to the grievant within thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of the formal grievance appeal. The written decision shall include a statement of the reasons if the decision of the Step II reviewer is rejected or modified in whole or in part and a statement that the decision is final. 65GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 7 (2) Step III-B Hearing Consideration (a) Only the following issues may be appealed for Step III-B hearing consideration: non-reappointment (see APM - 137-30-c); layoff or involuntary reduction in time (see APM - 145); corrective action: written censure, suspension, reduction in salary, or demotion (see APM - 150); dismissal (see APM - 150); allegations of discrimination in violation of APM - 035 involving non-reappointment, layoff, involuntary reduction in time, corrective action, or dismissal;

 allegations that procedures in a personnel review were not in consonance with the applicable rules and requirements of the University and/or that the challenged decision was reached on the basis of impermissible criteria, including (but not limited to) race, sex, or political conviction. (b) Within seven (7) calendar days from receipt of a written request for hearing consideration, the grievance liaison shall determine whether the grievant has identified an issue eligible to be appealed for hearing consideration. If the grievance liaison determines the appeal does not identify an issue eligible to be appealed for hearing consideration, the grievance liaison shall notify the grievant and submit the appeal for determination under Step III-A administrative consideration. When an appeal is eligible for hearing consideration, the grievance liaison shall coordinate a hearing consistent with the policies set forth in APM - 140-80. 66GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 8 140-80 Conduct of Hearing In advance of the hearing, the parties shall attempt to stipulate in writing issues to be submitted for review at the hearing. If the parties cannot agree on the issues, the hearing officer shall define them. Hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the following standards. a. Election of Hearing Officer (1) The grievant shall elect whether the grievance is heard by a University or a non-University hearing officer. Election by the grievant shall be in writing and shall be final. The Chancellor shall establish procedures for the selection of the University hearing officer. If the grievant elects a non-University hearing officer, in accord with campus procedures the University shall select the provider. The procedures of the chosen

provider shall be used to select the hearing officer. (2) Whenever possible, within forty-five (45) calendar days from the receipt of the election a hearing officer shall be selected and within sixty (60) calendar days thereafter a hearing date shall be scheduled. The hearing officer shall coordinate the hearing process through the grievance liaison. b. Hearing (1) The hearing officer shall convene a hearing in which each party shall have the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and submit rebuttal evidence. Evidence may be oral and/or documentary. Issues regarding the admissibility and weight of evidence shall be decided by the hearing officer. The hearing officer shall not have the authority to issue subpoenas. The hearing officer shall handle all procedural issues which arise before and during the hearing. (2) Upon request, each party shall provide the other with copies of materials to be introduced at the hearing and names of witnesses who will testify on the partys behalf in its case. To the extent possible, such materials and names of witnesses shall be exchanged at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing. 67GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 9 (3) In cases alleging a violation of APM - 137-30-c, 145, or 150, the Universitys representative shall proceed first in presenting the Universitys case at the hearing. In all other cases, the grievant shall proceed first in presenting his or her case at the hearing. (4) The hearing shall be closed unless both parties agree in writing to the presence of additional persons. In the absence of such an agreement, the hearing shall be closed to all persons other than the principal parties to the grievance, i.e., the supervisor or department or unit head, the

supervisors or department or unit heads representative, the grievant, the grievants representative, and the grievance liaison. (5) All materials, reports, and other evidence introduced into the hearing and recorded by an audio recorder, stenographic services, or by other means shall be considered confidential to the extent allowed by law and University policy. (6) The hearing officer shall be bound by the provisions of APM - 160-20d(2) pertaining to the Academic Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure regarding access to records. (7) An audio recording will be made by the University unless the parties agree in advance to share the costs of making a stenographic record. The grievant shall be permitted to arrange for stenographic recording at the grievants expense if the University does not agree to share the cost. The parties should be made aware that an audio recording is being made, who will have custody of the recording, and how copies may be obtained. c. Hearing Officers Authority (1) The hearing officer shall provide the parties in the case and the Chancellor with a written statement of findings and recommendation(s) within thirty (30) calendar days of the close of the hearing. In cases alleging a violation of APM - 145 or 150, the hearing officer shall determine whether the University has established by a preponderance of evidence that it had good cause to take such action. In cases alleging a violation of APM - 137-30-c, the hearing officer shall determine whether the University has established by a preponderance of evidence that it met the standard set forth in APM - 137-30-c. In all other cases, the hearing 68GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 10 officer shall determine whether the grievant has established that (1) a specific administrative act was arbitrary or capricious (see

APM - 140-4-b) and adversely affected the appointees then-existing terms or conditions of appointment; and/or (2) a violation of applicable University rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies occurred which adversely affected the appointees then-existing terms or conditions of appointment. The hearing officer shall make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. The hearing officer shall not recommend adding to, deleting from, or otherwise modifying the provisions of University rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies. (2) No evidence other than that presented at the hearing shall be considered by the hearing officer or have weight, except that notice may be taken of any facts that are commonly known and accepted by the parties. (3) The hearing officer shall not substitute his or her judgment for the academic judgment of a peer review committee or administrative officer, nor shall he or she be empowered to evaluate the academic qualifications or competence of academic appointees. (4) The Chancellor shall review the hearing officers findings and recommendations and issue a final written decision within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the hearing officers findings and recommendation(s). The Chancellor shall provide to the grievant a statement of the reasons if the hearing officers recommendation(s) is rejected or modified. If a decision is based on facts different from those found by the hearing officer, those findings must be based on materials in the record. d. Fees There shall be no cost to the grievant for a University hearing officer. In the case of a grievance heard by a non-University hearing officer, the hearing officers fees shall be borne equally by the University and the grievant if the Chancellor accepts the hearing officers recommendation(s). The fee shall be borne entirely by the University if the Chancellor rejects or modifies the recommendation(s) of the non-University hearing officer.

69GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 11 140-85 General Provisions a. Representation Grievants may represent themselves or may be represented by another person at any stage of the grievance process. The University shall be represented as the Chancellor deems appropriate; representation may be provided by the Office of the General Counsel. b. Time Limits Prior to expiration of a time limit, extensions may be granted by the grievance liaison upon written request by either party. If the grievant fails to meet a deadline, the grievance will be considered resolved on the basis of the last University response. If a University official fails to meet a deadline, the grievant may move the grievance to the next step in the process. Time limits which expire on days which are not business days at the location where the grievance is filed shall be automatically extended to the next University business day. c. Pay Status The grievant and the grievants representative, if employed by the University, shall be granted leave with pay based on their regular pay status to attend hearings and meetings convened by the University to consider grievances under this policy. Time spent by the grievant and the grievants representative in investigation and preparation of a grievance shall not be on pay status. Time spent by University employee-witnesses in meetings and hearings convened by the University shall be taken as leave with pay based on their regular pay status. d. Remedy If the grievance is sustained in whole or in part, the remedy shall not exceed restoring to the grievant the pay, benefits, or rights lost either as a result of the

violation of University rules, regulations, or Academic Personnel policies, or as a result of an arbitrary or capricious administrative action, less any income earned from any other employment. If the hearing officers findings and recommendation(s) include a remedy for back pay, the amount of back pay shall be determined by the administration. Disputes over the amount of back pay due may be referred back to the hearing officer for a separate 70GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY REGARDING APM - 140 ACADEMIC APPOINTEES Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances Rev. 1/8/03 Page 12 recommendation. Any claim of back pay by a grievant must be supported by appropriate documentation. Payment of attorneys fees shall not be part of the remedy. Unless specifically authorized by the grievance liaison, compensation shall not be paid for any period that is the result of extension(s) of time requested by or on behalf of the grievant. e. Consolidation of Grievances The following may be consolidated in one review: grievances of two or more academic appointees, where the grievances are related and consolidation is appropriate under the circumstances; two or more grievances filed by the same grievant which are based on the same incident, issues, or act; or two or more grievances filed by the same grievant which are based on the same pattern of conduct. The grievance liaison shall decide whether grievances will be consolidated. 71Standing Orders of the Regents *Please note that this information is current as of November 2010 and is superseded by any subsequent revisions. The most up-to-date information can be found here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/standing.html STANDING ORDER 100.1 Designation and to Whom Responsible a. Officers of the University shall be the President of the University, Executive Vice Presidents, Senior

Vice Presidents, other Vice Presidents, Associate Vice Presidents, Assistant Vice Presidents, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, and Director and Deputy Director of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Directors of University hospitals. b.The President shall be responsible directly to the Board. All other Officers shall be responsible to the President directly or through designated channels, with the exception of the General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs and the Senior Vice President - Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, both of whom shall have dual responsibility to the Board and to the President. Includes amendments through January 2010 UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 72 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions or comments about the Regents' website to Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 100. OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY STANDING ORDER 100.2 Employment Status (a) Appointment and dismissal of the President of the University shall be by an

affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the members of the Board. (b) Appointment or reemployment after retirement of all Officers of the University and other members of the Senior Managment Group shall be voted by the Board upon recommendation of the President of the University following consultation with an appropriate Standing Committee of the Board, as determined by the President, or with a special committee established for that purpose. (c) Action to demote or dismiss a Chancellor or the Director of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shall be voted by the Board upon recommendation of or following consultation with the President of the University. (d) Action to demote or dismiss other Officers of the University shall be taken by the President of the University upon recommendation of or following consultation with appropriate Officers and shall be reported to the Board. (e) Temporary appointments of acting status in Officer of the University or other Senior Management Group positions shall be voted on by the Board upon reccomendation of the President of the University. (f) Minor changes in titles of Officers of the University and other members of the Senior Management Group may be approved by the President of the University. Any such changes shall be reported to the Board in the Bi-Monthly Transaction Monitoring Report. Includes amendments through January 2010 73 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions

or comments about the Regents' website to Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 100.3 Compensation (a) Compensation of the President of the University shall be determined by the Board upon recommendation of the Committee on Compensation. (b) Compensation of all Officers of the University and other members of the Senior Management Group, including those individuals serving in an acting capacity, and including compensation upon appointment and subsequent changes in compensation, shall be determined by the Board upon recommendation of the President of the University through the Committee on Compensation. Includes amendments through January 2010 74 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions or comments about the Regents' website to Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 100.4 Duties of the President of the University (a)

The President shall be the executive head of the University and shall have full authority and responsibility over the administration of all affairs and operations of the University, excluding only those activities which are the responsibility of the Secretary and Chief of Staff, Chief Investment Officer, General Counsel of The Regents, and Senior Vice President - Chief Compliance and Audit Officer. The President may delegate any of the duties of the office except service as an ex officio Regent. (b) The President is authorized in the name of The Regents to award degrees to candidates recommended by the Academic Senate for degrees in course and certified by the respective registrars, and to confer honorary degrees, the award of which has been approved by the Board. In the absence of the President, or when specifically delegated by the President, the Chancellors on the respective campuses of the University shall confer the honorary degrees so awarded by The Regents. Degrees in course, awarded by the President as prescribed above, may be conferred by any Officer of the University, including Officers of the respective campuses, on delegation by the President. The President shall seek the advice of the Academic Senate, through committees appointed in a manner which the President shall determine, in connection with the award of all honorary degrees. (c) The President of the University, in accordance with such regulations as the President may establish, is authorized to appoint, determine compensation, promote, demote, and dismiss University employees, except as otherwise provided in the Bylaws and Standing Orders and except those employees under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and Chief of Staff, Chief Investment Officer, and General Counsel of The Regents. Before recommending or taking action that would affect personnel under the administrative jurisdiction of Chancellors, Executive Vice Presidents, Senior Vice Presidents, other Vice Presidents, or the Director of the

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the President shall consult with or consider recommendations of the appropriate Officer. When such action relates to a Professor, Associate Professor, or an equivalent position; Assistant Professor; a Professor in Residence, an Associate Professor in Residence, or an Assistant Professor in Residence; a Professor of Clinical (.e.g, Medicine), an Associate Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine) or an Assistant Professor of clinical (e.g., Medicine); a Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment, or a Lecturer with Security of Employment, the Chancellor shall consult with a properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate. (d) The President and those of his staff to whom he may delegate such authority are authorized to act as agents of The Regents to carry out the collective bargaining responsibilities of the University under the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act ( HEERA sections are 3560-3599). Whenever the President, under either general or specific authority delegated to him, takes action affecting the terms and conditions of employment of University employees, it shall be understood 75email the Regents, please address your comments to Regents Office Last updated: March 29, 2010 that for employees represented by an exclusive representative, such action may be taken only after satisfaction of any obligation the University may have to meet and confer with respect to such action, and then only to the extent approved by the President. (e) The President is authorized to grant leaves of absence with or without pay,

in accordance with such regulations as the President may establish, except that paid leaves of absence that exceed ninety days for Chancellors,the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Director, Executive Vice Presidents, Senior Vice Presidents, and other Vice Presidents shall be subject to approval by the Board upon recommendation of the President of the University. (f) The President annually, through the appropriate Standing Committee, shall present to the Board recommendations as to the budget of the University, recommendations as to the Capital Improvement Program of the University, and recommendations as to requests for appropriations of funds for the University. (g) The President shall fix and determine the amount, conditions, and time of payment of all fees, fines, and deposits to be assessed against students of the University, except that the President shall secure the Board's approval prior to the assessment of the University Registration Fee, Educational Fee, tuition fees, and fees and charges required in connection with the funding of loan financed projects, except student-fee-funded facilities, parking facilities and housing projects. (h) The President shall fix the calendar of the University, provided that no session of instruction shall be established or abolished except with the advice of the Academic Senate and the approval of the Board. (i) The President is authorized to make awards of fellowships, scholarships, and prizes with the advice of the Chancellors and the Academic Senate, and to approve expenditures from appropriations, gifts, and endowments for these purposes. (j) The President shall consult with the Chancellors and the Academic Senate

regarding the educational and research policies of the University, and shall keep the Chancellors and the Academic Senate informed about significant developments within the University and within the State and Federal governments which may have serious consequences for the conduct of education and research within the University. The President shall present recommendations to the Board concerning the academic plans of the University and of the several campuses. The President shall transmit to the Board any memorial which the Academic Senate may address to The Regents. (k) The President shall develop, initiate, implement, and approve fundraising campaigns for the benefit of the University in accordance with the policies of the Board. (l) The President shall represent the Corporation and the University in all matters requiring action by the Congress or officers of the United States or by the Legislature or officers of the State of California. (m) 76The President is authorized to negotiate and approve indirect cost rates to be applied to contracts and grants under which the University conducts programs supported by extramural funds, provided that such negotiations shall be directed toward full recovery of indirect costs. Newly approved indirect cost rates determined under the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A21, and any successor publication thereto, shall be reported to the Committee on Finance annually. (n) The President is authorized to permit expenditures against contracts, grants, and gifts, or against firm commitments thereon, provided that the contracts, grants, and gifts have been solicited or negotiated in accordance with established Regental policy. (o)

The President is authorized to approve transfers or allocations of University operating funds and transfers of funds designated for Capital Improvement purposes, subject to any limitations which might be imposed by the terms of said funds, provided: That no such transfer or allocation shall result in the establishment of a new policy, program, or project involving a continuing commitment; 1. That no transfer shall be made from a reserve fund for a purpose other than that for which the reserve fund was established. 2. (p) The President is authorized to approve the incurring of commitments and expenditures against the following year's budget in advance of the effective date thereof. Advance commitments for expenditure for materials, services, and equipment shall not exceed fifty percent of the Governor's budget proposal to the Legislature for such purposes for the ensuing fiscal year. Advance commitments for appointments shall not exceed the number of positions and the funds provided in the Governor's budget proposal to the Legislature for the ensuing fiscal year. The number of such advance commitments authorized shall be determined annually by the President. (q)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (q)(2) below, the President is authorized to approve amendments to the Capital Improvement Program for projects not to exceed $10 million. The President is also authorized to approve amendments to the Capital Improvement Program for projects exceeding $10 million up to and including $20 million, provided that concurrence is obtained from the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Committee on Grounds and Buildings and also provided that all actions taken in excess of $10 million up to and including $20 million under this

authority be reported at the next following meeting of the Board. However, the following shall be approved by the Board: (1) projects with a total cost in excess of $20 million, (2) for projects in excess of $20 million, any modification in project cost over standard cost-rise augmentation in excess of 25%, or (3) capital improvement projects of any construction cost when, in the judgment of the President, a project merits review and approval by The Regents because of special circumstances related to budget matters, external financing, fundraising activities, project design, environmental impacts, community concerns, or substantial program modifications. (q)(2) This paragraph shall apply exclusively to capital projects on campuses approved by the Committee on Grounds and Buildings for inclusion in the Pilot Phase of Process Redesign for Capital Improvement Projects. 77The President is authorized to approve amendments to the Capital Improvement Program for projects not to exceed $60 million. However, the following shall be approved by the Board: (1) projects with a total cost in excess of $60 million, (2) for projects in excess of $60 million, any modification in project cost over standard cost-rise augmentation in excess of 25%, or (3) capital improvement projects of any construction cost when, in the judgment of the President, a project merits review and approval by The Regents because of special circumstances related to budget matters, external financing, fundraising activities, project design, environmental impacts, community concerns, or substantial program modifications. This paragraph shall become inoperative and is repealed on March 31, 2011, unless a later Regents action, that becomes effective on or before March 31, 2011, deletes or extends the date on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed. (r) The President is authorized to modify budget estimates of income of

wholly or partially self-supporting activities, and in connection therewith to increase or decrease appropriations accordingly. Such authorization is subject to the availability of funds. (s) The President is authorized, in accordance with the terms specified by the donor, to designate the purpose for which, and the campus or other location at which, the income and/or principal of a gift shall be used and to make allocations in accordance therewith. (t) The President is authorized to determine, consistent with any expressed intent of the donor, the purpose for which and the campus or other location at which a gift shall be used, to determine whether income and/or principal shall be used, and to make allocations and reallocations in accordance therewith, to the extent not specified by the donor of a gift. (u) Any action taken pursuant to sections (s) and (t) above shall conform to established University programs and policies and shall not constitute a commitment requiring expenditures in excess of budgeted items. (v) The President is authorized, after consultation with the General Counsel, to return to the donor all or any unused portion of a gift of personal property, when the purposes of the gift have been fulfilled or fulfillment has become impossible or impracticable and when alternative uses are precluded. (w) The President is authorized to write off bad debts, provided reserves for that purpose are adequate or that specific income or an appropriation is available for that purpose. (x) The President is authorized to write off against funds received from the Federal Government in reimbursement of indirect costs, routine

disallowed claims under grants and contracts. (y) The President is authorized to appoint and to execute necessary agreements with executive architects, executive landscape architects, and executive and consulting engineers for approved projects. (z) 78The President is authorized to approve building plans and to solicit bids in connection with approved projects, except that the President shall not approve the design of such projects as the Board has specifically designated as requiring design approval by the Committee on Grounds and Buildings. (aa) The President is authorized to approve the siting of individual buildings or projects, provided that their locations are generally in accordance with a long-range development plan previously approved in principle by the Board, and to approve the siting of individual buildings or projects on University properties, such as field stations and research stations, which may not be covered by approved long-range development plans. (bb) The President is authorized to execute on behalf of the Corporation claims against debtors in bankruptcy, in receivership or in liquidation, and against estates of deceased persons. (cc) Except as otherwise specifically provided in the Bylaws and Standing Orders: The President is authorized to approve and execute on behalf of the Corporation contracts, real property rental agreements, leases, ground leases and other documents pertaining to the use of real property for University-related purposes with a term of not more than twenty years (excluding options when the University is the lessee but including options provided by the University as lessor).

As used in these Standing Orders, the term University-related purposes refers to real property and interests therein held and/or used by the University in furtherance of its mission, but excluding real property held for investment purposes. (dd) Except as otherwise specifically provided in the Bylaws and Standing Orders, the President is authorized to execute on behalf of the Corporation all contracts and other documents necessary in the exercise of the President's duties, including documents to solicit and accept pledges, gifts, and grants, except that specific authorization by resolution of the Board shall be required for documents which involve or which are: Exceptions to approved University programs and policies or obligations on the part of the University to expenditures or costs for which there is no established fund source or which require the construction of facilities not previously approved. 1. Renewal or modification of the prime contract with the Department of Energy for the operation of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; renewals or substantive modifications of the Los Alamos National Security LLC and Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC Agreements; and modifications to the prime contracts pertaining to the Los Alamos National Laboratory or the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that would constitute a cardinal change. 2. Loans of funds of the Corporation, other than loans from established student, faculty, and staff loan funds. 3. Agreements for the provision of employee group insurance benefits, with the understanding that Board authorization shall not be required for periodic revisions to existing agreements when the

revisions do not substantially change the authorized scope of the benefit plans. 4. Affiliation agreements with other institutions or hospitals involving direct financial obligations or commitments to programs not 5. 79previously approved. Agreements with associations composed of medical staff for collection of professional fees for services rendered to patients at University or affiliated teaching hospitals. 6. Applications for new licenses to the Federal Communications Commission for authority to operate radio or television broadcast equipment. 7. 8. Construction contracts in excess of appropriated funds. Agreements by which the University assumes liability for conduct of persons other than University officers, agents, employees, students, invitees, and guests. In circumstances where it is deemed necessary by the President, in consultation with the General Counsel, to indemnify non-University persons who have agreed at the University's request to serve as advisors on operational matters for conduct within the scope of their role as advisors, the President is authorized to provide for defense and indemnification. This restriction does not apply to agreements under which the University assumes responsibility for the condition of property in its custody. 9. (ee) Anything contained in subsection (dd) above to the contrary notwithstanding, the President is authorized to take all actions and to

execute all documents necessary in the exercise of the President's duties when an emergency precludes prior submission to the Board, provided that in all such cases the President shall report such actions to the Board, through an appropriate Standing Committee, at its next regular meeting. (ff) The President is authorized to negotiate the sale, purchase, receipt by gift, or lease of all interests in real property used, or to be used for University-related purposes, and to administer all such properties and interests (gg) The President is authorized to approve the sale, purchase, receipt by gift, or other acquisition of all interests in real property used or to be used for University-related purposes when the consideration does not exceed $20 million. The President is also authorized to approve the sale, purchase, receipt by gift, or other acquisition of all such interests in real property when the consideration exceeds $20 million up to and including $60 million, provided that concurrence is obtained from the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, and also provided that all actions taken for these amounts under this authority be reported at the next meeting of the Board. Such transactions with consideration exceeding $60 million require Board approval. (hh) In furtherance of the authorities set forth in (ff) and (gg) above, the President is authorized to execute all documents, except those conveying title; provided, however, that any such documents executed prior to approval required in accordance with (gg) above, shall be conditioned upon obtaining such approval. (ii) The President shall be the custodian of all contracts of purchase and sale, gift agreement, leases, licenses, easements and rights of way, ground leases, mortgages, deeds of trust, insurance policies and other

documents relating to real property transactions for University-related purposes custody for which is not established elsewhere in the Bylaws and Standing Orders. (jj) 80The President is authorized to approve and execute licenses, easements, and rights-of-way with respect to (1) real property used or to be used for University-related purposes or (2) University-related real property to be used by others. (kk) The President is authorized to approve leases, assignments of leases or subleases, and related amendments of such documents for mineral rights, including gas, oil, and other hydrocarbons, or geothermal resources as to real property used or to be used for University-related purposes if the land rent does not exceed $500,000 per year during the primary lease term. (ll) The President is authorized to take all appropriate action incident to the administration of University home loan programs as approved by The Regents, including (1) receiving and administering promissory notes, mortgages, deeds of trust, grant deeds, and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure, (2) executing releases and satisfactions of mortgages and requests for reconveyances of deeds of trust when the University home loan program notes secured by such mortgages and deeds of trust have been paid in full or otherwise satisfied, and (3) accepting title to real property through foreclosure, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, or other similar actions. (mm) The President is authorized to develop and implement policies and procedures on matters pertaining to intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and tangible research products, and to execute documents necessary for the administration of intellectual property, including those which may contain commitments existing longer than seven years. The President annually shall report to the Board on

matters pertaining to intellectual property. (nn)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (nn)(2) below, the President shall be the manager of all external financing of the Corporation. The President is authorized to obtain external financing for amounts up to and including $10 million for the planning, construction, acquisition, equipping, and improvement of projects. The President is also authorized to obtain external financing for amounts in excess of $10 million up to and including $20 million, provided that concurrence is obtained from the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, and also provided that all actions taken to obtain external financing for amounts in excess of $10 million up to and including $20 million be reported at the next following meeting of the Board. External financing in excess of $20 million requires Board approval. The President shall have the authority to (1) negotiate for and obtain interim financing for any external financing, (2) design, issue, and sell revenue bonds or other types of external financing, (3) issue variable rate or fixed rate debt, and execute interest rate swaps to convert fixed or variable rate debt, if desired, into variable or fixed rate debt, respectively, (4) refinance existing external financing for the purpose of realizing lower interest expense, provided that the President's authority to issue such refinancing shall not be limited in amount, (5) provide for reserve funds and for the payment of costs of issuance of such external financing, (6) perform all acts reasonably necessary in connection with the foregoing, and (7) execute all documents in connection with the foregoing, provided that the general credit of The Regents shall not be pledged for the issuance of any form of external financing. (nn)(2) This paragraph shall apply exclusively to capital projects on campuses approved by the Committee on Grounds and Buildings for inclusion in the Pilot Phase of Process Redesign for Capital Improvement Projects. 81The President shall be the manager of all external financing of the

Corporation. The President is authorized to obtain external financing for amounts up to and including $60 million for the planning, construction, acquisition, equipping, and improvement of projects. The President shall have the authority to (1) negotiate for and obtain interim financing for any external financing, (2) design, issue, and sell revenue bonds or other types of external financing, (3) issue variable rate or fixed rate debt, and execute interest rate swaps to convert fixed or variable rate debt, if desired, into variable or fixed rate debt, respectively, (4) refinance existing external financing for the purpose of realizing lower interest expense, provided that the President's authority to issue such refinancing shall not be limited in amount, (5) provide for reserve funds and for the payment of costs of issuance of such external financing, (6) perform all acts reasonably necessary in connection with the foregoing, and (7) execute all documents in connection with the foregoing, provided that the general credit of The Regents shall not be pledged for the issuance of any form of external financing. This paragraph shall become inoperative and is repealed on March 31, 2011, unless a later Regents action, that becomes effective on or before March 31, 2011, deletes or extends the date on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed. (oo) The President is authorized to administer University participation in corporations, companies, and partnerships, provided that such participations have been approved by the Board for University-related purposes, and to execute all documents in connection therewith on behalf of the University. The President shall be the custodian of all documents related to such participations. (pp) The President shall be the representative of the Corporation in, and is authorized to execute agreements in connection with, all matters relating to bank accounts and bank services; banking relationships; financial and

banking type services provided by entities other than banks, including but not limited to, the following: The President shall select the banks in which funds of the Corporation are deposited and from which funds are disbursed. 1. The President is authorized to transfer to the name of the Corporation all bank accounts, including time certificates of deposit, received as gifts to the Corporation, and to make withdrawals from or close such accounts. 2. The President is authorized to designate representatives of the University who may sign checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money or initiate electronic transfers of funds against University checking accounts, provided that all such representatives are covered by fidelity bond. The President is authorized to approve the use of and to direct banks or other depositories to honor facsimile signatures. 3. The President is authorized to designate a list of representatives of the Corporation who may sign checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money or initiate electronic transfers of funds against bank accounts used for deposit of Chief Investment Officer's General Cash and to make withdrawals from savings accounts, provided that all such actions have been approved by two such representatives, including one from the Office of the President and one from the Office of the Chief Investment Officer, and provided further that all such representatives are covered by fidelity bond, and provided that nothing herein shall be construed as empowering the President to direct banks or other depositaries to honor facsimile signatures except on authority of the Committee on Finance.

4. 82The President is authorized to make arrangements for lockbox, electronic transfer of funds, escrow services, credit card and other services to facilitate the collection or disbursement of funds. 5. (qq) Extreme Financial Emergency for purposes of this Standing Order shall mean any event(s) or occurrence(s) creating an imminent and substantial deficiency in available University financial resources which could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the ability of the University, campus, or multiple campuses, to sustain its current or future operations in a manner which would allow it to fulfill its tripartite mission consistent with past practices. The deficiency in available financial resources may result from significant reductions in any of the following: legislative appropriation; state revenues which make appropriated funds unavailable; income from other sources including auxiliary enterprises and services, contracts, grants, gifts, tuition and fees. 1. The President of the University shall have authority, consistent with legal requirements, to implement furloughs and/or salary reductions, on terms that the President deems necessary, for some or all categories of University employees, upon Declaration of Extreme Financial Emergency, as specified below. The President further shall have the authority, during the pendency of the Declaration and consistent with applicable legal requirements, to suspend the operation of any existing Regental or University policies otherwise applicable to furloughs and/or salary reductions that are contrary to or inconsistent with the terms the President deems necessary to the proposed implementation. The authority provided herein may be exercised with regard to the University as a whole or with regard to a campus or multiple campuses. For purposes of this section, Furlough means temporary unpaid time off of

work where use of accrued vacation leave, compensatory time off, or any other paid leave or compensation may not be used. 2. Extreme Financial Emergency may be declared only by the Regents on the Presidents recommendation. Any request by the President for approval of such a Declaration shall be made in writing directed to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board and to the Chair of the systemwide Academic Senate, with copies directed to the Principal Officers of The Regents and appropriate University Officers. Such writing must generally describe the emergency conditions underlying the Declaration, the current or future effects of such conditions on campus or University operations, the expected duration of the Declaration if known (which in no event may extend beyond one year), a summary of the plan for implementing the proposed furloughs and/or salary reductions, and the expected outcome of the proposed plan. 3. The President shall engage in consultation with campus Chancellors, representatives of the systemwide Academic Senate and the appropriate representatives of systemwide staff and academics concerning the matters to be included in the request for approval of a Declaration of Extreme Financial Emergency prior to submitting the request to The Board of Regents. If the request for approval of a Declaration of Extreme Financial Emergency is submitted by a Chancellor to the President, the Chancellor shall engage in consultation with representatives of the divisional Academic Senate and the appropriate representatives of campus staff and academic representatives concerning the matters to be included in the request for approval of a Declaration of Extreme Financial Emergency prior to submitting the request to the President. 4. The authority provided under this Standing Order is in addition to any authority otherwise provided University officials under other Regental or

University policies and, except as provided herein, nothing in this Standing Order shall limit such other authority. 5. Includes amendments through March 2010 83 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions or comments about the Regents' website to Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 100.5 Duties of the Vice Presidents (a) The Executive Vice Presidents and Senior Vice Presidents shall perform such duties of the President of the University as the President shall designate. In the event of the unavailability or inability of the President to act, Executive Vice Presidents shall have and exercise all the duties and powers of the President, other than service as a Regent, in such order and to such extent as the President shall designate. (b) Other Vice Presidents shall advise and assist the President of the University in connection with those functions of the administration of the University assigned to them by the President.

Includes amendments through September 21, 2006 84 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions or comments about the Regents' website to Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 100.6 Duties of the Chancellors (a) The Chancellor of each campus shall be the chief campus officer thereof and shall be the executive head of all activities on that campus, except as herein otherwise provided and excepting such activities as may be designated by the Board as University-wide activities; and with reference to these on a particular campus the Chancellor shall be consulted. In all matters within the Chancellor's jurisdiction, the Chancellor shall have administrative authority within the budgeted items for the campus and in accordance with policies for the University as determined by the President of the University. The Chancellor shall be responsible for the organization and operation of the campus, its internal administration, and its discipline; and decisions made by the Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of the budget and with policies established by the Board or the President of the University shall be final. The Chancellor of each campus

shall nominate Officers, faculty members, and other employees on that campus in accordance with the provisions of these Standing Orders. (b) The Chancellor on each campus shall appoint all the members of the instructional staff deemed necessary for the conduct of instruction in any summer session on that campus, and may fix their remuneration in accordance with the provisions of the budget established by the Board and of the salary scales of the University. (c) The Chancellor of each campus shall preside at all formal functions on that campus. At formal exercises and ceremonies attended by the President, the Chancellor shall present the President, who, as the University's chief executive, shall function in accordance with the University's rules for protocol and procedure. The Chancellor, with the approval of the President, may replace or supplement formal exercises on the campus, including Commencement exercises, with informal functions at which Vice Chancellors, Provosts, or Deans may preside. Includes amendments through February 19, 1971 85 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions or comments about the Regents' website to

Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 103.2 Privilege of a Hearing Before the Academic Senate Any member of the Academic Senate shall have the privilege of a hearing by the appropriate committee or committees of the Academic Senate on any matter relating to personal, departmental, or University welfare. Not amended after April 18, 1969 86STANDING ORDER 103.9 Tenure All appointments to the positions of Professor and Associate Professor and to positions of equivalent rank are continuous in tenure until terminated by retirement, demotion, or dismissal. The termination of a continuous tenure appointment or the termination of the appointment of any other member of the faculty before the expiration of the appointee's contract shall be only for good cause, after the opportunity for a hearing before the properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate, except as otherwise provided in a Memorandum of Understanding for faculty who are not members of the Academic Senate. An Assistant Professor who has completed eight years of service in that title, or in that title in combination with other titles as established by the President, shall not be continued after the eighth year unless promoted to Associate Professor or Professor. By exception, the President may approve appointment of an Assistant Professor beyond the eighth year for no more than

two years. Includes amendments through May 15, 1987 [ List of Standing Orders ] [ Home ] Send questions, comments, or suggestions to Anne.Shaw@ucop.edu. 87 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions or comments about the Regents' website to Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 103.10 Security of Employment Except as otherwise provided in a Memorandum of Understanding for faculty who are not members of the Academic Senate, a Lecturer-Potential Security of Employment or Senior Lecturer-Potential Security of Employment appointed at more than half time who has completed eight years of service in that title, or in that title in combination with other titles as established by the President, shall not be continued in that title after the eighth year unless given appointment with security of employment. By exception, the President may approve appointment of a Lecturer-Potential Security of Employment or Senior Lecturer-Potential Security of Employment on more than half time beyond the eighth year without security of employment, but such appointment may not extend beyond two years.

An appointment with security of employment shall not be terminated except for good cause after the opportunity for a hearing before the properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate. Includes amendments through 9/16/88 88 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE REGENTS 1111 Franklin St., 12Floor Oakland, CA 94607 tel (510) 987-9220 fax (510) 987-9224 Please email questions or comments about the Regents' website to Anne Shaw If you would like to STANDING ORDER 105.1 Organization of the Academic Senate (a) The Academic Senate shall consist of the President, Vice Presidents, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Deans, Provosts, Directors of academic programs, the chief admissions officer on each campus and in the Office of the President, registrars, the University Librarian on each campus of the University, and each person giving instruction in any curriculum under the control of the Academic Senate whose academic title is Instructor, Instructor in Residence; Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor in Residence, Assistant Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine); Associate Professor, Associate Professor in Residence, Associate Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine), Acting Associate Professor; Professor, Professor

in Residence, Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine), or Acting Professor; full-time Lecturer with Potential for Security of Employment, full-time Senior Lecturer with Potential for Security of Employment, full-time Lecturer with Security of Employment, or full-time Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment; however, Instructors and Instructors in Residence of less than two years' service shall not be entitled to vote. Members of the faculties of professional schools offering courses at the graduate level only shall be members also of the Academic Senate, but, in the discretion of the Academic Senate, may be excluded from participation in activities of the Senate that relate to curricula of other schools and colleges of the University. Membership in the Senate shall not lapse because of leave of absence or by virtue of transference to emeritus status. (b) The Academic Senate shall determine its own membership under the above rule, and shall organize, and choose its own officers and committees in such manner as it may determine. (c) The Academic Senate shall perform such duties as the Board may direct and shall exercise such powers as the Board may confer upon it. It may delegate to its divisions or committees, including the several faculties and councils, such authority as is appropriate to the performance of their respective functions. Includes amendments through March 20, 1987 89Legislative Rulings *Please note that this information is current as of November 2010 and is superceded by any subsequent revisions. The most up-to-date information can be found here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ senate/manual/appendix2.html Legislative Rulings by the University Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction

3.73 Right to a Hearing. 1. The Standing Orders of The Regents guarantee to each member of the Academic Senate "the privilege of a hearing by the appropriate committee or committees of the Academic Senate on any matter relating to personal, departmental or University welfare." ( Standing Order of The Regents 103.2) The Standing Orders also guarantee "the opportunity for a hearing before the properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate" prior to the "termination of a continuous tenure appointment or the termination of the appointment of any other member of the faculty before the expiration of his contract." (Standing Order of The Regents 103.10) While a "hearing" is guaranteed in these instances, the Standing Orders are silent as to the precise nature of the hearing, and also as to the Senate committee which is to afford the hearing. However, the Senate's Bylaws [SBL 112, renumbered to 113, then to 335, then to 336] ll part of this gap. Bylaw 112(C) provides that "Proceedings for the dismissal, suspension, or demotion of members of the Academic Senate or ofcers of instruction shall be conducted before a Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure," and Bylaw 112(C)(2)(e) lays down certain procedures which must be followed in such a hearing. Further, Bylaw 112(D) provides that "Any member of the Academic Senate or ofcer of instruction who believes his privileges or tenure have been violated may complain to the Committee on

Privilege and Tenure of his Division. If such a person makes a reasonable showing of such a violation, the Divisional committee shall make such further investigation of the facts as it deems proper and notify the appropriate administrative ofcer that the complaint has been led ... [and] may, in its discretion, after due notice to the parties, hold a hearing as prescribed in (C)(2)(e) of this Bylaw..." (Emphasis added) In short: the Standing Orders guarantee the right of a hearing before a Senate Committee in a broad range of cases, but do not specify the precise nature of the hearing, or the committee which shall conduct it. The Senate Bylaws provide that in certain types of cases a hearing conducted under specied procedures must be held by the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure and that in other cases the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure may in its discretion afford such a hearing. 2. The procedures to be followed by Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committees in exercising its discretion under Bylaw 112(D) [renumbered to 335(D), then to 337] in determining whether to afford a hearing of the type specied by Bylaw 112(C), are not specied in the Manual of the Academic Senate. However, contemporary standards of due process indicate that in determining how to exercise such discretion, the Committee shall at a minimum: (a) accord the complainant, on written request, a timely opportunity to appear in person before it and state his grievance; and (b) provide the complainant, within a reasonable time, a written statement

reporting the Committee's disposition of his grievance and the reasons therefore. 3. No Division may enact legislation which limits the jurisdiction or discretion granted to the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure under Senate Bylaw 112. 4. The Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure has been specically charged with responsibility for advising the Senate and its Divisions on general matters of policy involving the privileges or tenure of all members of the Academic Senate or ofcers of instruction (Senate Bylaw 112(B)). Therefore, this Universitywide committee must be consulted before any marked deviation from accepted procedures in these matters is legislated. 5. While decisions in individual cases arising under Bylaw 112 may not be appealed on the merits to any other Senate agency, a Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure may be asked, under Senate Bylaw 8(A), [renumbered to 40.A] by the Assembly, the Division, or a Faculty of the Division to describe its procedures and policies. Such procedures and policies may be reviewed for conformance with item 2 above and with other applicable sections of the Code of the Academic Senate. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 903.93A Applicability of Senate Bylaw 335 [now 334, 335, 336, and 337] and the Faculty Code of Conduct to Administrators Standing Order of the Regents 105.1(a) species those persons who are members of the Academic Senate by virtue of appointment either to certain administrative titles or to certain instructional titles, including the professorial title or its equivalent and the title of Lecture or Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment. Both categories of members have all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities

of Senate membership, including the privilege of a hearing by the appropriate committee of the Academic Senate, "on any matter relating to personal, departmental, or University welfare," as provided by Standing Order 103.2. Standing Order 100.4(c) requires the Chancellor to consult with a properly constituted committee of the Academic Senate before taking any action, including some actions disciplinary in character, that would affect a person holding one of the instructional titles that confer membership in the Academic Senate under Standing Order 105.1(a), but there is no such provision for actions affecting a person holding one of the administrative titles that confer membership in the Academic Senate. Senate Bylaw 335 [now 334, 335 and 336] establishes Divisional Committees on Privilege and Tenure or, under certain circumstances, another committee constituted for the purpose by the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure, as the sole committees of the Academic Senate authorized to consider cases of grievance by or disciplinary action against a member of the Academic Senate. Appendix IV of the Manual of the Academic Senate, incorporated also as Section 015 in the Academic Personnel Manual, sets forth the "University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline." Section I of the policy denes the disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed upon a faculty member and summarizes the provisions of the Standing Orders and of Senate Bylaw 335 [now 336] for the administration of discipline. Section II, subtitled "The Faculty Code of Conduct," summarizes the professional rights of the faculty, sets forth standards of professional conduct, and recommend the establishment of campus procedures for the administration of discipline.

Appendix IV, including the Faculty Code of Conduct and campus disciplinary procedures implementing it, applies only to those members of the Academic Senate who hold one of the instructional titles specied in SOR 100.4(c), and only to the extent that any proposed disciplinary sanctions affect the status of the person charged as a member of the faculty holding one of the titles specied in SOR 100.4(c). Under Standing Orders 100.2, 100.4(c), and 100.6(a), the suspension or dismissal of an administrator from an administrative title or appointment is reserved to the Regents, the President, and the Chancellors, with no requirement for consultation with the Academic Senate. An administrator whose title confers membership in the Academic Senate may, however, invoke the privilege of a hearing guaranteed by SOR 103.2. In that case, the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure or another hearing committee constituted as provided for in Senate Bylaw 335.C [now 336] shall consider the case and render its advice prior to the imposition of discipline. Since Senate Bylaw 335.F(1) [now 336.B(1)] uses the term "member of the Academic Senate," the procedures outlined in Senate Bylaws 335.F and 335.G [now 336.B and 336.D] must be followed, but other procedures established for discipline of faculty under the Faculty Code of Conduct need not be applied. In the absence of any proposed sanction involving demotion, suspension, or dismissal from one of the titles listed in SOR 100.4(c), and in the absence of an appeal to the privilege of a hearing, the Administration is not required by the Standing Orders to consult with the Academic Senate prior to the

imposition of discipline upon an administrator, whether or not the administrative title confers membership in the Academic Senate, although such consultation may very well take place. A disciplinary action against an administrator who also holds an instructional title may proceed in two steps, one involving the proposed removal of the administrative title under procedures established by the Regents and the Administration, and a second stage involving the proposed censure, demotion, suspension or dismissal from a professorial title or its equivalent, under the procedures for discipline established in accordance with Appendix IV and the Faculty Code of Conduct. In accordance with Standing Orders 100.1(b), 100.2(a), 100.2(b), 100.2(c), and 100.2(d), in the event that the person upon whom it is proposed that a discipline be imposed is a Chancellor, Vice-President, Director, or the chief admissions ofcer in the Ofce of the President, from whom such title has not UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 91been removed, the role in procedures for discipline ordinarily reserved to the Chancellor shall be assumed by the President. The President is responsible directly to the Board of Regents. The kinds of conduct specied as unacceptable and subject to disciplinary action in the Faculty Code of Conduct are as unacceptable in the behavior of an administrator holding a faculty appointment as in that of any other faculty member. Section I of Appendix IV explicitly distinguishes, however, between willful misconduct and incompetence. Administrative incompetence does not in itself constitute a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct.

Senate Bylaw 335 provides a separate set of procedures whereby any member of the Academic Senate may complain to the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure that the member's rights and privileges have been violated. SBL 335.A [now 334.A] characterizes grievances and disciplinary actions as "distinct categories of cases" and this distinction must carefully be observed. Among other differences, grievances may be brought before the Committee by any member of the Academic Senate, whereas disciplinary proceedings come to the Committee as a consequence of actions proposed against a member of the Academic Senate by the chancellor. 3.93B Campus Procedures for Discipline of Faculty Standing Order 100.6(a) vests the responsibility for the discipline of each campus to the Chancellor of that campus, subject to the requirement of Standing Order 100.4(c) that the Chancellor shall consult with a properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate before taking any action that would affect a member of the Academic Senate holding a professorial title or its equivalent. Senate Bylaw 335 [now 334 and 336] establishes divisional committees on Privilege and Tenure or, under certain circumstances, another committee constituted for the purpose by the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure, as the sole committees authorized to hold evidentiary hearings and to advise the administration prior to the imposition of discipline. Consistent with SOR 100.6(a), Senate Bylaw 335 [now 336] species that disciplinary proceedings before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall be initiated by the Chancellor. Appendix IV of the Manual of the Academic Senate entitled "University

Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline," also published as Section 015 of the Academic Personnel Manual, outlines the circumstances under and the general procedures by which disciplinary charges against members of the Faculty are initiated and investigated. Appendix IV is intended as an implementation of the Standing Orders and of Senate Bylaw 335 and in Section I explicitly states that nothing contained in the policy is intended to change the various authorities and responsibilities vested in the Regents, the Administration, or the Academic Senate as set forth in the Standing Orders of the Regents and the Bylaws of the Academic Senate. Section I also states that while the Faculty Code of Conduct contained in Section II of the policy is the ofcial basis for imposing discipline on members of the faculty for professional misconduct, its Part III consists solely of suggested guidelines and recommendations to the Divisions of the Academic Senate and the campus administrations. Campus procedures that are consistent with the suggested guidelines and recommendations of Part III of the Faculty Code of Conduct are therefore also consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate, which incorporates the Faculty Code of Conduct, but nothing in Part III of the Faculty Code of Conduct may be construed as limiting the authority for discipline vested in the Chancellors by the Regents. In the case of any apparent inconsistency between Part III of the Faculty Code of Conduct and the Standing Orders of the Regents, the Bylaws of the Academic Senate, or Section I of Appendix IV, the provisions of the latter shall prevail. 1. Under Appendix IV, Section I, the procedures under which allegations of a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct are initiated and processed need not, with the exception of the

procedures for formal hearing provided for by Senate Bylaw 335 [now 336], be identical on every campus; but all must be consistent with the Standing Orders of the Regents and with the Bylaws of the Academic Senate, and no discipline may be imposed except in accordance with established procedures. Appendix IV, Section I, species that it is the responsibility of each Chancellor to establish procedures for the administration of discipline on the campus, in consultation with the campus Division of the Academic Senate and such other advisory groups as are appropriate. While Part III of Section II of Appendix IV recommends that "each Division, in cooperation with the campus administration, promptly develop procedures dealing with the investigation of allegations of faculty misconduct," the sole authority for this recommendation is the Assembly of the Academic Senate, and it does not confer on the UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 92Divisions a role that is more than advisory nor does it supersede the ultimate authority for the establishment of disciplinary procedures vested in the Chancellor by the Standing Orders and afrmed in Section I of Appendix IV. No disciplinary procedures may therefore be established, through divisional legislation or by any other means, except with the approval of the Chancellor and, as provided for in Section I of Appendix IV, the concurrence of the President. Since procedures need not be identical on every campus, it follows that a Chancellor may reasonably withhold approval of a proposed procedure, even if such a procedure would be consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate, would be consistent with the

Standing Orders of the Regents, and may be in effect on another campus. Standing Order 100.6(a) denes the Chancellor's decisions in the administration of the campus, including the administration of discipline, as "nal," subject only to the authority of the President and the Regents. Any Division that believes the Chancellor to have unreasonably withheld approval of proposed disciplinary procedures consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate and consistent with the Standing Orders of the Regents or to have established procedures that deny to the faculty the meaningful participation in campus discipline guaranteed under Appendix IV, Section II, Part I.4(c) may appeal the Chancellor's decision through a Memorial or a Resolution as provided for in Standing Order 105.2(e) and Senate Bylaw 90. 2. The Chancellor's ultimate authority for the administration of discipline and for the initiation of formal proceedings before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure notwithstanding, the initiation of a disciplinary complaint against a member of the faculty is not dependent on or exclusively reserved to the Chancellor or, by delegation, other ofcers of the campus administration. While a Chancellor or other administrative ofcer administers disciplinary sanctions, disciplinary complaints against a member of the Faculty can be initiated by individuals and groups other than administrators, including students, other members of the faculty, and members of the university community. The procedures for investigating and processing complaints against a member of the faculty shall be as specied in campus procedures for discipline, as recommended in Appendix IV, Section II, Part III.4. In the absence of such procedures on the campus, allegations of professional misconduct against members of the faculty shall be delivered in writing to the Chancellor. 3. In accordance with the recommendations of Appendix IV, Section II, Part III.4, and III.8, campus procedures may include a preliminary investigative process whose

purpose is to determine whether there is "probably cause." "Probable cause" is established if it is determined that a person of ordinary prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously to entertain a strong suspicion that there has been a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct. The investigative process may be conducted by an ofcer of the Administration, by a committee of the Academic Senate, or through another mechanism established for the purpose of accordance with disciplinary procedures in effect for the campus. While Appendix IV, Section II, Part III.7 recommends involvement of members of the faculty in the investigation of allegations of misconduct, campus procedures may or may not include such a provision. In the absence of any specic procedures on the campus, the responsibility for investigating allegations of professional misconduct against members of the faculty rests with the Chancellor. 4. Under Standing Orders of the Regents 100.4(c) and 100.6(a) and Senate Bylaw 335.F.1 [now 336.B.1], the responsibility for determining at the conclusion of the investigative phase whether or not formal disciplinary sanctions against a member of the faculty should be proposed and charges lodged with the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure rests with the Chancellor of each campus or, in the event that the accused person is the Chancellor, with the President. Under disciplinary procedures established for the campus, the Chancellor may or may not delegate this authority to another ofcer of the administration, to a committee of the Academic Senate, or to some other person or committee designated for the purpose under campus procedures for discipline.

4.94 Privilege of a Hearing Standing Order of the Regents 103.2 guarantees to any member of the Academic Senate "the privilege of a hearing by the appropriate committee or committees of the Academic Senate on any matter relating to personal, departmental, or university welfare." The Standing Orders do not dene the nature of the hearing so guaranteed nor do they specify the committee or committees by whom such hearing UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 93is to be afforded. It is therefore left to the Academic Senate to dene the nature of the hearing and to specify the committee or committees which shall afford the privilege of that hearing. Legislative Rulings 5.75 and 12.80 and Senate Bylaw 335 [now 334] have specied Divisional Committees on Privilege and Tenure or, in certain cases, another committee constituted either by the Divisional Committee or by the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure as the sole Senate agencies authorized to grant to a member of the Academic Senate the privilege of a hearing in disciplinary cases, cases of early termination, and grievances in which a member of the Academic Senate alleges that the member's rights or privileges have been violated. Senate Bylaw 335 [now 336] species the circumstances and the procedures under which the committee shall hold a formal hearing in disciplinary actions or cases of early termination. In grievances, Senate Bylaw 335.E [now 335.B] provides that in any case "the complainant shall have the right to appear before the committee," but requires a formal hearing only if the committee determines that "the complainant has made out a prima facie

case of violation of a right or privilege" and only if the committee is unable to effect an informal settlement of the controversy. The privilege of a hearing guaranteed by SOR 103.2 is not limited to formal hearings or informal appearances before Committees on Privilege and Tenure. Such hearings or appearances discharge the privilege primarily in matters relating to "personal welfare." Except for those cases covered by SBL 335 [now 334], however, and except that SBL 60, 120.D.5, and 315.E grant to each member of the Academic Senate the privilege of the oor, with voice, at any meeting of the Assembly or of the member's Division or its Assembly, Senate Bylaws nowhere guarantee to members of the Academic Senate the right of personal appearance or of voice before any universitywide or divisional committee. Except as may otherwise be provided in Divisional bylaws, therefore, the Bylaws of the Academic Senate have limited the privilege of personal appearance and voice to appearances before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure in those cases covered by SBL 335 [now 334] and, in other cases, before those committees authorized to adopt or amend legislation -- namely, the Assembly of the Academic Senate and the Divisions or their Assemblies. The Academic Senate has accordingly dened those committees in which legislative authority has been vested as "the appropriate committee or committees" under SOR 103.2 by whom the privilege of a hearing, in the strict sense of personal appearance and voice, must be afforded in matters other than those cases covered by SBL 335.

Other committees of the Academic Senate may afford to members of the Academic Senate the privilege of a hearing, in a less formal sense, on matters of "departmental or university welfare" within the purview of the committee. A member of the Academic Senate wishing to exercise that privilege should address the issue in writing through the Chair of the Academic Council in the case of universitywide committees or the Chair of the Division for Divisional committees. Under SBL 110.A.3 and similar provisions in the bylaws of the Divisions, it is within the discretion of the Chair of the Academic Council or the Division to determine within which committee's purview the matter properly belongs. Since the Academic Senate has limited the privilege of personal appearance to appearances before Committees on Privilege and Tenure and before those committees in which legislative authority has been vested, it is left to the discretion of other committees of the Academic Senate to determine whether or not to grant to any member of the Academic Senate the privilege of personal appearance and voice before the committee. Among the senses of the word "hear" in Webster's Third International Dictionary is "to receive a message or letter." Except as provided in SBL 60, 120.D.5, 315.E, and 335 [now 334] , the privilege of a hearing may be afforded entirely through the medium of written communication. 12.80 Privilege and Tenure - Hearings [supersedes 5.75A] Under Bylaw 113 [renumbered 335, with relevant portions now subsumed under 334, 335, and 337] Divisional Committees on Privilege and Tenure are designated the sole Senate Agencies to hold hearings, and make ndings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations on complaints that the privilege or

tenure of a Senate member has been violated. Under SOR 103.9 the Divisional Committees on Privilege and Tenure shall also provide an opportunity for hearing those cases involving the termination of the appointment of a Senate or non-Senate member of the faculty before the expiration of his or her contract. The extension of the hearing rights of non-Senate academic personnel beyond this point is outside Senate jurisdiction. The administration may appoint members of a Committee on Privilege and Tenure to an administrative committee to conduct such hearings, but these members would not be UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 94exercising Senate jurisdiction in doing so. Other Senate agencies may consider and make recommendations about the general conditions out of which complaints arise, but they may not adjudicate individual cases. UCSF Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Grievance Guidelines 95 Letter from the Chancellor Members of the Campus Community: As members of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) community, we all share the responsibility to conduct our professional and personal practices with integrity and compassion. This responsibility is the foundation for the UCSF Campus Code of Conduct. There is perhaps no more important obligation that you and I have than to uphold the principles and standards included in this Code. UCSF is a prominent public institution and a

major employer in San Francisco. To maintain our status as a leader in the community and to earn the trust and respect we each desire, we must aspire to the highest standards of human conduct. We must never lose sight of our ultimate goal of pursuing knowledge in order to cure, alleviate, or prevent illness. I am counting on everyone to reach our goal with pride in each other and our work. Susan Desmond-Hellmann, M.D., M.P.H Chancellor Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Distinguished Professor CODE OF CONDUCT 96UCSF Mission & Vision Mission: advancing health worldwide Vision: In advancing health worldwide, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) will: ! Develop innovative, collaborative approaches for education, health care and research that span disciplines within and across the health sciences ! Be a world leader in scientific discovery and its translation into improved health ! Develop the worlds future leaders in health care delivery, research and education ! Deliver the highest-quality, patient-centered care ! Build upon its commitment to diversity ! Provide a supportive work environment to recruit and retain the best people and position UCSF for the future ! Serve the local, regional and global communities and

eliminate health disparities UCSF Code of Ethics The citizens of California entrust UCSF with the responsibility for providing high quality teaching, health care and research, and for assuring that the highest standards of ethical conduct and integrity are practiced in meeting these responsibilities. The professional conduct of each member of the campus community is expected to be consistent with and fully comply with these principles. All members of the campus community are expected to engage in the following: ! Integrity conducting ourselves with integrity in our dealings with and on behalf of the University. ! Respectful behavior treating everyone with civility, courtesy, tolerance and acceptance, and recognizing the worth, dignity and unique characteristics of each individual. ! Trustworthy conduct including dependability, loyalty and honesty in communications and actions. ! Accountability taking personal responsibility for ones actions and decisions. ! Fair and just actions utilizing equitable processes in decision-making. ! Responsible management including prudent use of University resources in a fiscally responsible manner. ! Compassion caring for others, both within and apart from the UCSF community, and providing the highestquality service to patients and humanity. ! Good citizenship striving to make the UCSF community function well now and in the future. ! Excellence conscientiously striving for excellence in our

work. Principles of Community The San Francisco campus of the University of California is dedicated to learning and teaching in the health sciences. As a graduate and professional school campus, UCSF serves society through four primary missions: teaching, research, patient care and public service. Faculty, staff and students on the UCSF campus are a composite of many races, creeds and social affiliations. To achieve campus goals, individuals must work collaboratively with mutual respect and with forbearance. Several principles of community life are established to guide individual and group actions on the campus. Adherence to these principles is essential to ensure the integrity of the University and to achieve campus goals. UCSF faculty, staff and students are asked to acknowledge and practice these basic principles of community life: ! We affirm that members of the campus community are valued for their individual qualities, and members are encouraged to apply their unique talents in creative and collaborative work. ! We recognize, value and affirm that social diversity contributes richness to the University community and enhances the quality of campus life for individuals and groups. We take pride in our various achievements, and celebrate our differences. 97! We affirm the right of freedom of expression within the UCSF community and also affirm commitment to the highest standards of civility and decency toward all persons.

! We are committed to creating and maintaining a community where all persons who participate in University activities can work together in an atmosphere free from all forms of abusive or demeaning communication. ! We affirm the individual right of public expression within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity and respect. ! We recognize the right of every individual to think and speak as dictated by personal belief, to express individual ideas and to state differences with other points of view, limited only by University requirements regarding time, place and manner. ! We reject acts of discrimination, including those based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and religious or political beliefs. ! We recognize that UCSF is devoted to public service, and encourage members of the campus community to participate in public service activities in their own communities and recognize their public service efforts in off-campus community settings. ! We affirm that each member of the campus community is expected to work in accord with these principles and to make individual efforts to enhance the quality of campus life for all. Addressing Issues and Concerns Employees are encouraged to discuss questions or concerns with their immediate supervisor. If this is not practical or issues or conflicts arise that cannot be resolved between the individual and the immediate supervisor, the individual should raise the concerns through the department administrative or academic hierarchy. This may include the next level of manager, the department head, and the office of the dean

or vice chancellor where the unit reports. Faculty with concerns or questions should discuss them with the department chair. MSOs and department chairs encountering ethical conflicts involving any campus member are expected to work through the associate dean of the school or the office of the vice chancellor to which they report. Students with questions or concerns should speak with their faculty of record or advisor, contact the student affairs office in their school, contact the Office of Student Life, or the Graduate Division for assistance. Postdoctoral scholars should address questions to their faculty Principal Investigator/mentor or the Graduate Division. Whistleblower Policy Under University policy, individuals are encouraged to use the University Whistleblower Policy if they have a good faith belief that an activity occurred or is continuing to occur that is not in compliance with federal or state law or University policy. Such individuals are protected from retaliation for making such a "protected disclosure." A "protected disclosure" may be made to the campus Whistleblower Coordinator, Clinical Compliance Officer, or any campus administrator, director, manager or supervisor. This policy may be found on the campus website at: http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/policies/whstlblo.html Whistleblower Coordinator (415) 502-2810 Faculty Misconduct Academic Personnel Manual (APM) Section 015The Faculty Code of Conduct establishes standards of professional conduct and includes listings of faculty responsibilities, ethical principles and types of unacceptable behavior. Faculty Misconduct occurs when there is a violation of the Faculty

Code of Conduct as defined in APM 015 Part IIProfessional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct. Concerns about possible faculty misconduct should be reported to the responsible Academic Vice/Associate Dean or the Vice ProvostAcademic Affairs. 98Research Misconduct The campus adheres to the Department of Health and Human Services definition of Research Misconduct as follows: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Concerns about possible research misconduct should be reported to the UCSF Research Integrity Officer, Vice Provost Sally J. Marshall. Individuals should not undertake investigations of suspected research misconduct on their own. The UCSF Integrity of Research Policy (Campus Administrative Policy 100-29) can be viewed at http://policies.ucsf.edu/100/10029.htm The Clinical Enterprise The Mission of the UCSF Medical Center is "Caring, Healing, Teaching and Discovering" and its Vision is "to be the best provider of health care services, the best place to work and the best environment for teaching and research." The UCSF Medical Staff Bylaws and Clinical Compliance Program provide guidance and clarification of roles and responsibilities of all UCSF faculty, staff, students and house staff participating in the delivery of health care. http://www.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/medstaffoffice/MedStaffBylawsRule