Title: In re Murray

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Murray  (95-296); 166 Vt. 198; 689 A.2d 463

[Filed 17-Jan-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 95-296

Grievance of David Murray and                     Supreme Court
Vermont State Colleges Faculty
Federation                                        On Appeal from
                                                  Labor Relations Board

                                                  June Term, 1996

Louis A. Toepfer, Acting Chair

       John L. Pacht and Robert W. Katims of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy &
  Frame, P.C., Burlington, for appellants

       Nicholas DiGiovanni, Jr., of Morgan, Brown & Joy, Boston,
  Massachusetts, and Paul K. Sutherland of Sutherland & Collins, Inc.,
  Burlington, for appellee

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       GIBSON, J.   David Murray (grievant) and the Vermont State Colleges
  Faculty Federation appeal from a decision of the Vermont Labor Relations
  Board denying reappointment of grievant to a third year of service at
  Castleton State College.  The Vermont State Colleges (VSC) cross-appeal
  from the Board's decision that the College violated the collective
  bargaining agreement between the Federation and VSC by removing grievant's
  position from the faculty bargaining unit and making it an administrative
  position.  We affirm.

       The College hired grievant in the Fall of 1992 as an assistant
  professor and as director of student teaching.  Grievant's job as director
  of student teaching included matching a student's practice-teaching
  placement preference with available placement sites, developing additional
  sites, reviewing each student's record to determine qualification for
  teaching licensure in Vermont, and making appropriate recommendations
  regarding individual students.  A recurring issue within the
  student-teaching program was the amount of guidance grievant was supposed
  to offer other faculty members directly supervising student teachers
  working in their placement sites.

 

       Academic Dean Joseph Mark appointed grievant to a second year in 1993,
  after receiving a favorable report from the College's Retention, Promotion
  and Tenure (RPT) Committee, but Mark noted in his recommendation that he
  was "seriously concerned" about the College's relationship with cooperating
  schools and that it was important for the director of student teaching to
  offer guidance to college faculty and cooperating teachers whose job it was
  to supervise student teachers.  Grievant responded to Mark's comments in a
  memorandum asking for clarification of his responsibilities with respect to
  other College faculty and cooperating teachers, suggesting that the amount
  of guidance needed was minimal and that all he could offer was "collegial
  support," since the College faculty supervisors "are my peers."

       During the Fall of 1993, the College's Education Department chair and
  associate chair wrote letters supporting promotion of grievant to associate
  professor, and the RPT Committee recommended his appointment for a third
  year.  In January 1994, the Education Department presented to Mark, who was
  then Castleton's interim president, a self-study based on a wide survey of
  persons concerned with the program that criticized the student teaching
  program for "lack of supervision of student teachers."  Grievant responded
  with a memorandum stating that "the real focus should be on faculty
  assuming their responsibilities for the supervision of student teachers in
  their charge and making the appropriate site visits, since this is where
  the real problems lie."

       On February 1, 1994, Associate Dean Joan Mulligan recommended that
  grievant be reappointed, but expressed reservations.  Grievant sent Mark a
  lengthy rebuttal to Mulligan's letter, stating that her "comments are
  totally inaccurate and, in fact, reflect a great deal of ignorance on her
  part in regards [sic] to the role of the Director."

       The Board found that interim President Mark "gradually came to believe
  that the best solution for the Castleton Student Teaching program would be
  the creation of an administration position outside the faculty bargaining
  unit."  The rationale for this change was better supervision of Education
  Department faculty than a fellow faculty member could provide, which was in
  accordance with grievant's comments about the difficulty of his supervising
  fellow faculty

 

  members.  Mark met with senior members of the Education Department to
  discuss whether these changes should be made, expressing concern that the
  College's ability to place students was being negatively affected and
  improvement was needed.  Mark did not discuss these proposals with
  grievant.

       On March 1, 1994 Mark notified grievant that he would not be
  reappointed to a third year, but stated no reasons.  The Federation filed a
  grievance, alleging, in essence, that the College had failed to follow
  Article 21(J)(2) and (4) of the Agreement, which state:

     2. The President shall decide whether or not a faculty
     member shall be reappointed to a second, third, or fourth year of
     service according to the provisions of Article 20 and this Article.
     In making this decision, the President shall consider only the
     performance of the faculty member and the faculty staffing needs
     at the College.

     *       *       *

     4. A decision of the President not to reappoint a faculty
     member to a second, third, or fourth year of service shall not be
     subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of this
     Agreement unless the faculty member or the Federation claims the
     decision violates Article 7 (Academic Freedom), Article 8 (Anti-
     Discrimination), or the procedure for reappointment set forth in
     this Agreement.

  The Federation maintained that in considering nonreappointment of a faculty
  member, Article 21(J)(2) mandated consideration of grievant's performance
  and that omission of such consideration was a violation of the Agreement. 
  In a second appeal, the Federation also asked that Dean Mulligan's letter
  be deleted from grievant's file.   In a third appeal, the Federation argued
  that the unilateral decision by the College to convert grievant's position
  from a faculty to an administrative position violated the
  faculty-governance provisions of the contract.

       The Board denied the reinstatement grievance, first defining the scope
  of "procedure of appointment":

     [T]his claim of the Federation reads too much into the meaning of
     "procedure of appointment," which we conclude is limited to
     ensuring that there is adherence to the mechanics of the
     reappointment procedure such as entering materials in the faculty
     member's personnel file, meeting deadlines for evaluations,
     recommendations, and decisions; and meeting notice requirements.

 

  The Board found that Mark did not base his decision on grievant's
  performance, but instead decided "as a matter of addressing the staffing
  needs of the College that the duties of Director of Student Teaching should
  not be handled by a faculty member."

       The Board also found that Mark's decision not to reappoint grievant
  was not based on Mulligan's recommendation, but it did order the Mulligan
  letter stricken from grievant's employment file.  It also granted the
  Federation's grievance with respect to creation of the administrative
  position, ordering that the VSC provide the faculty assembly at the College
  with the opportunity to consider the proposed removal from the bargaining
  unit of duties that were previously performed by a faculty member.  The
  appeals of grievant, the Federation, and VSC followed.

                                I.

       In reviewing the Board's conclusion, this Court may "`only ask whether
  the findings of fact taken as a whole justify the Board's ultimate
  conclusion.'"  Vermont State Colleges Faculty Fed'n v. Vermont State
  Colleges, 152 Vt. 343, 348, 566 A.2d 955, 958 (1989) (quoting In Re Liquor
  Control Dep't Non-supervisory Employees, 135 Vt. 623, 625,