Just Cause, Not Just Because
In addition to seeking more job security for adjuncts through a Tier System and longer-term contracts, we introduced a new proposal at the November 20 Bargaining Session designed to prevent capricious discipline or dismissal. It is titled Just Cause, and it is a cornerstone of most labor contracts.
If an adjunct is to face discipline for any reason, up to and including dismissal, there must be a reason that can withstand the “Seven Tests of Just Cause” whose roots go back to the work of Professor Carroll Daugherty, an economist, labor arbitrator and educator.
These are the Seven Tests of Just Cause:
1. Reasonable Rule - Was the employer’s rule reasonably related to safe and efficient operations?
2. Fair Notice - Was the employee aware of a rule and adequately warned of the consequences of his/her conduct?
3. Due Process - Was there an investigation before administering discipline?
4. Fair Investigation - Was the investigation fair and objective?
5. Proof: Did the investigation produce substantial evidence or proof of guilt?
6. Equal Treatment - Were the rules and penalties applied evenhandedly and without discrimination?
7. Appropriate Discipline - Was the penalty reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and past record?
Dispute over Two Pieces of Chicken Leads to Landmark Decision
If a union member reasonably believes that a meeting might result in discipline or dismissal, he or she would have right to union representation at that meeting. A 1975 Supreme Court decision established Weingarten Rights, and this landmark case has its origins in a dispute over a couple pieces of chicken.
In 1974, a lunch counter worker was accused of taking a 6-piece box of chicken, but paying only for 4 pieces. The worker claimed that she only took four pieces but had to use a big box because there were no small ones. During the investigation the worker’s requests for union representation were repeatedly denied. Her union filed an unfair labor practice against the employer, and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that employees are entitled to union representation during investigatory interviews. By the way, the worker’s story checked out, and she was ultimately cleared of the supposed infraction.
Most of us hope to never face discipline or dismissal, but should one of those unfortunate situations arise, there will be protections in place and assistance from the union to help adjuncts navigate tricky waters.
Robin McCloskey
Bargaining Team Member
In addition to seeking more job security for adjuncts through a Tier System and longer-term contracts, we introduced a new proposal at the November 20 Bargaining Session designed to prevent capricious discipline or dismissal. It is titled Just Cause, and it is a cornerstone of most labor contracts.
If an adjunct is to face discipline for any reason, up to and including dismissal, there must be a reason that can withstand the “Seven Tests of Just Cause” whose roots go back to the work of Professor Carroll Daugherty, an economist, labor arbitrator and educator.
These are the Seven Tests of Just Cause:
1. Reasonable Rule - Was the employer’s rule reasonably related to safe and efficient operations?
2. Fair Notice - Was the employee aware of a rule and adequately warned of the consequences of his/her conduct?
3. Due Process - Was there an investigation before administering discipline?
4. Fair Investigation - Was the investigation fair and objective?
5. Proof: Did the investigation produce substantial evidence or proof of guilt?
6. Equal Treatment - Were the rules and penalties applied evenhandedly and without discrimination?
7. Appropriate Discipline - Was the penalty reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and past record?
Dispute over Two Pieces of Chicken Leads to Landmark Decision
If a union member reasonably believes that a meeting might result in discipline or dismissal, he or she would have right to union representation at that meeting. A 1975 Supreme Court decision established Weingarten Rights, and this landmark case has its origins in a dispute over a couple pieces of chicken.
In 1974, a lunch counter worker was accused of taking a 6-piece box of chicken, but paying only for 4 pieces. The worker claimed that she only took four pieces but had to use a big box because there were no small ones. During the investigation the worker’s requests for union representation were repeatedly denied. Her union filed an unfair labor practice against the employer, and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that employees are entitled to union representation during investigatory interviews. By the way, the worker’s story checked out, and she was ultimately cleared of the supposed infraction.
Most of us hope to never face discipline or dismissal, but should one of those unfortunate situations arise, there will be protections in place and assistance from the union to help adjuncts navigate tricky waters.
Robin McCloskey
Bargaining Team Member