UC-Davis Lecturers Win in Court

More than three years after filing an unfair practice charge against UC Davis, former UC Davis lecturers are seeing progress in their fight against the university’s plan to “re-balance” the number of research faculty and lecturers on campus.

An administrative law judge with the state’s Public Employment Relations Board issued a proposed decision in their favor, finding that the university interfered with the lecturers’ right to be represented by the University Council-American Federation of Teachers.

UC-AFT filed the unfair practice charge against the university in April 2001, but no action was taken until UC-AFT amended the charge the following year. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) then issued a complaint alleging that the university violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act because the lecturers were not given proper notice and the opportunity for the UC-AFT to represent them.
PERB alleged that by deciding unilaterally to discontinue the practice of making new post-six-year appointments of lecturers in November 2000, the university changed its criteria for reviewing and appointing lecturers without giving lecturers the opportunity to negotiate-a violation of the union agreement. The university answered the complaint in 2002, denying the allegations.

Post-six-year appointments give lecturers an opportunity to sign a contract with the university for further teaching, as long as they have lectured for six years at the university, there is an “instructional need” for them, and they have passed an excellence review.
The complaint named seven former UCD lecturers affected by the policy change. Judge Fred D’Orazio, who reviewed the complaint for PERB, proposed that the lecturers be provided with an opportunity for an excellence review and consideration for post-six-year appointments, as well as compensation for the amount they would have earned had the original policy been followed by the University of California.

Kevin Roddy, president of the UC-AFT Local 2023 and a lecturer at UCD, said the motive behind the university’s action was a perceived need to “re-balance” the number of research faculty and lecturers, thus shifting the university’s emphasis away from teaching.

“We didn’t see any sense in [the re-balancing goal],” Roddy said. “The university should emphasize teaching.”

Roddy noted that all seven of the lecturers dismissed from UCD were excellent, and the decision brought this fact to light.

“We feel that finally we’re getting the recognition that we’ve worked so hard for,” Roddy said.

Jay Grossi, who currently teaches at Sierra College and American River College, previously worked as a lecturer in the Italian program at UCD. He was not reviewed for a three-year contract at the end of the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 academic years, despite the testimony from Grossi which indicated that there was “instructional need” for lecturers. UC officials said in a report that Senate faculty and existing lecturers could meet that instructional need, but first year Italian courses were taught by TAs in 2002-2003.

“I’m glad to see that the suit showed we were in the right,” said Grossi, who looks forward to returning to UCD.

Amy Clarke, a former lecturer for the English department at UCD, expressed a mixture of emotions.

“I feel really vindicated by the judge’s decision,” she said. However, Clarke said she felt angry that there would be no real repercussions for the UC, and was skeptical about the university’s next move.

Dennis Shimek, vice chancellor of Human Resources at UCD, said no formal statement in reaction to the proposed decision has yet been released.

“We’re currently reviewing [the proposed decision],” Shimek said.