AAP Advocate

Volume 3, Number 2, April 2000

APs Get Fired Up About Sanctions

Who Sets "Just Cause" for Dismissal?

Will this amendment make it easier to get rid of APs? While dismissing an employee for egregious behavior is necessary at times, we hope that this amendment will not lead to capricious dismissals. The only way to ensure that academic professionals are treated fairly is to have objective, third-party arbitration and a voice for APs in the form of a collective bargaining unit.

The Urbana-Champaign Faculty Senate is considering an amendment to the University Statutes that defines cause for sanctions and dismissal of academic professionals. Because University administrators are contemplating multiyear contracts for some APs, they see the need to define cause and create a more streamlined system for dismissal.

The Association of Academic Professionals (AAP) does not dispute the need for a definition of cause. Our position is that if an employee is seriously negligent or poses a threat to others in the workplace, then he/she should be sanctioned or dismissed. However, the definition of cause should be developed very carefully so as not to facilitate arbitrary dismissals.

Many APs expressed concerns about the language contained in the First Reading of the proposed amendment, which defined cause as:

one or more acts or omissions which, singly or in the aggregate, are sufficient to interfere with the orderly and efficient operation of any part of the University. This may include off-duty behavior or extramural conduct if it is found that such behavior clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the staff member can no longer be relied upon to perform university duties and functions.

I also criticized the proposed "Progressive Response," which is: 1. Counseling and/or verbal warning; 2. Written warning and/or reprimand; 3. Sanctions; and 4. Dismissal. The amendment stipulated that any of the steps "may be repeated, omitted, or taken out of sequence." This makes it neither progressive nor necessarily required. I suggested that each step be strictly followed; situations that may necessitate dismissal without the other steps should be spelled out clearly. Furthermore, the employee should be able to give a written response to each written warning; otherwise, an unjustified warning or reprimand may be used as evidence to build a case against the employee. A truly progressive response includes the right to appeal at each level, not just after the dismissal notice has been served.

The Senate Committee on University Statutes and Senate Procedures considered our recommendations and deleted some of the offending language (see www.uiuc.edu/providers/senate/sp9706_2.html). The sentence starting "This may include off-duty behavior or extramural conduct ..." was removed from the revised document. The phrase "where warranted by the seriousness of the circumstances" was added to the sentence about the steps in the progressive response being "omitted or taken out of sequence."

But why does the amendment still include the language "interfere with the orderly and efficient operation of any part of the University"? Why not just acts that have to do with one's job? And who determines the seriousness of the circumstances? How can the progressive response process be enforced?

The revised amendment is the result of successful intervention by AAP and a reasoned response by the Senate committee. The success shows not only that the AAP will guard the interests of APs, but also that the union and the administration can work together in the interest of APs.

Currently nonteaching APs on recurring funds are issued one-year contracts. If our contract is not renewed, we usually receive a notice of non-reappointment (a terminal contract) and can continue working for the University until the contract runs out.

With the proposed change, if an employee is dismissed for cause, the existing contract is abrogated and the dismissal is effective immediately after the proposed hearing. Some APs wonder if this is an answer to the criticism of the outside consultants in the Support Services Strategy Initiative (S3) that:

The burdensome termination processes and University culture make it difficult to remove poor performers .... Once a decision has been made to terminate an academic professional employee, that employee must continue working until the termination date. (s3.ua.uillinois.edu, p. 200.)

While dismissing an employee for egregious behavior is necessary at times, we hope that this amendment will not lead to capricious dismissals. No matter how carefully the definition of cause is constructed, its implementation depends on how it is interpreted. The only way to ensure that academic professionals are treated fairly is to have objective, third-party arbitration and a voice for APs in the form of a collective bargaining unit.

All we are asking for is fair treatment.

Update on Sanctions:

EMAIL POLL! We want to know what you think about the proposed sanctions for APs. Please send your opinions to aap@shout.net.