Opinion ID: 3011281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Faculty Grievance Procedure and Alvin's

Text: Correspondence The facts that we do examine are those regarding the faculty grievance procedure and the evidence of the extent to which Alvin attempted to avail himself of the University processes. The University's 1988 Handbook explains the two-step Faculty Grievance Procedure. Thefirst step, entitled the Informal Process, requires the professor to contact the chair of the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee (TAFC) for an informal investigation. Thereafter, the TAFC mediator should attempt to resolve the complaint: [e]very effort will be made to achieve a satisfactory resolution within two weeks of the initial contact with the aggrieved person. The mediator is then supposed to write a letter to the faculty member with whatever findings and recommendations seem appropriate under the circumstances. 6 The second step, the Formal Process, is available if the informal process does not resolve the dispute. The Faculty Handbook provides that [i]n the event that the informal investigation and mediation process does not resolve the grievance dispute, the aggrieved faculty member may submit to the Provost a written statement of the grievance and the circumstances out of which it arose. This written statement will be the complaint that will initiate the formal grievance procedure described below, and must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of the TAFC letter. The formal process provides for a grievance panel which reviews the case and makes recommendations to the Provost. The faculty member may present documents, evidence, testimony, and retain counsel. Alvin contends that he attempted to use the University's procedures. What follows is a summary, in the light most favorable to Alvin, of pertinent parts of his correspondence --those letters and communications, which, according to him, demonstrate his attempt to pursue the grievance procedure: 1. On May 17, 1990, Alvin wrote to Dr. Robert W. Koch, Executive Associate Dean of the School of Dental Medicine, complaining about the reallocation of laboratory space and requesting that he be informed as quickly as possible of the formal appeals procedures that are available to me and any interested colleagues both within and outside of the School of Dental Medicine. 2. On June 6, 1990, Alvin again wrote to Koch, referring in the letter to a meeting about the reallocation of laboratory space a few weeks earlier. He expressed dissatisfaction with the meeting, and asked again if Koch would please inform [him] of the formal appeals procedures available to [him] within and outside the School of Dental Medicine. 3. Some time in 1991, Alvin met with Dr. Sanford Golin of the TAFC. Golin, according to Alvin, agreed to initiate the grievance procedure regarding the use of research facilities and equipment for post-doctoral exchange students. 7 4. On July 23, 1991, Alvin wrote Provost Donald Henderson about a number of issues, addressing several disagreements he had with University policies as well as complaints about how the University had treated him, but he did not mention a formal appeal process or grievance. 5. On February 23, 1992, Alvin wrote to Suzuki, stating that he planned to appeal his decision regarding lab space through whatever procedures are available both within and without the School of Dental Medicine. 6. On June 15, 1992, Alvin wrote to Regis Vollmer, the Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology, complaining of his treatment and asking, among other things:Lacking an information gathering process in advance, what is the appeal process post facto? Why have my requests for appeal gone unattended since February? 7. On June 25, 1992, Suzuki wrote to Alvin, stating that: I have received your appeal of my decision that you vacate the two labs presently assigned to you. Please be advised that your request is denied based on the School of Dental Medicine's policy of assigning space based on research productivity and need. On July 7, 1992, Alvin wrote to Suzuki again, asking about an interpretation of Suzuki's letter (Does this mean my request for an appeal is denied or that my appeal based on the issues is denied?), and urging him to reconsider. 8. On September 7, 1992, Alvin wrote to UPitt Chancellor Dennis O'Connor. The letter began, I am contacting you in the hope that I have not reached the terminus in administrative review on the matters described below. My appeals to the chairman of my department, the dean of my school, and the provost have gone unanswered. The letter went on to detail several of the complaints that form the basis of this claim. 9. On September 16 and September 21, 1992, Alvin wrote to Dr. James Holland, President of the University Senate, detailing his complaints and stating that he was formally submitting his grievance. Along with these letters he sent A Grievance Concerning Revocation of Research Facilities. 8 10. In October 1992, Alvin met with Dr. Tobias, the Chair of the TAFC. Tobias told him that the grievance process would go forward and that Alvin would have an opportunity to present evidence and his point of view: Dr. Tobias eventually met with me, in October, 1992. Dr. Tobias assured me that he would conduct the grievance process, that he would give me the opportunity to submit relevant information, and that he would conduct a grievance resolution meeting with me and Dr. Suzuki (or Dr. Vollmer, my Chairman). However, when a meeting (the only one I have been able to discover) was held, I was not invited to it, was not told it was going to take place, and was not given the opportunity to submit information. 11. In November 1992, Alvin told Vollmer that he was worried that the TAFC committee was not acting on his case. Vollmer told him that Tobias had confidentially contacted Vollmer, and that Vollmer was not sure if the panel would be meeting with him. Vollmer told Alvin that UPitt attorneys were on the case. 12. On December 22, 1992, Tobias and Golin wrote to Alvin on behalf of the TAFC, informing him that they had rejected his claim, and that he could pursue an appeal by following the second, formal step laid out in the Faculty Handbook. Alvin admits that after this series of correspondence, he did not pursue any further review by any faculty committee. The record also reflects that he failed to present evidence suggesting that he ever attempted to trigger a grievance process regarding his allegations (1) that he was denied secretarial support; (2) that he was treated unfairly in connection with his grant proposal; (3) that his 1993-94 or 1994-95 annual review was biased; and (4) that his transfer from the School of Dental Medicine to the School of Pharmacy was improper.