SHRA Grievance – Step 2 Hearing Report – GRIEVANT NAME
{INSTITIONAL/DEPARTMENT HEADER}
DATE: DATE
TO: [Chancellor/Vice Chancellor] NAME
DIVISION
FROM: Mr. NAME, Panel Chair
TITLE, DEPARTMENT
RE: SHRA Grievance Step 2 Hearing Report
for Case# 201X-00xx (GRIEVANT’S NAME)
Attached please find the Step 2 Hearing Report for the SHRA grievance filed by Ms. NAME on DATE.
The hearing panel finds by a preponderance of the evidence that management met its burden in dismissing
Ms. NAME, and therefore recommends that Ms. NAME’s grievance be denied.
On behalf of the full panel, thank you for the opportunity to serve the University community on this matter.
Attachments: Hearing Report with Appendices
cc: Ms. NAME, SHRA Grievance Officer
Ms. NAME, Office of University Counsel
Step 2 Hearing Report
Grievance Case#: / 201X-00xx
Grievance Filing Date: / DATE
Grievant’s Department: / DEPARTMENT
DIVISION
Grievant’s Name: / NAME, Title, Department
Grievant’s Supervisor: / NAME, Title, Department
Step 2 Respondent: / NAME, Title, Department
Step 2 Hearing: / DATE, TIME
BLDG, Room XXXX
Issue of Grievance: / · Lack of just cause for dismissal
Desired Outcome: / · Reinstatement with back pay in former position
· Reversal of all related disciplinary documents/actions
· Mediation with NAME and her immediate supervisor
Hearing Panel/Officer:
Chair / NAME, Title, Department
Panelist / NAME, Title, Department
Panelist / NAME, Title, Department
Other Parties Present at Step 2 Hearing:
Grievance Officer / NAME, Title, Department
Witness 1 – for Grievant / NAME, Title, Department
Witness 2 – for Grievant / NAME, Title, Department
Witness 3 – for Respondent / NAME, Title, Department
Witness 4 – for Respondent / NAME, Title, Department
Witness 5 – for Respondent / NAME, Title, Department
Observer / NAME, Title, Department
Charge to the Hearing Panel/Officer:
The Hearing Panel is charged with making a recommendation to the [Vice/Chancellor] whether or not there was just cause to dismiss the Grievant, consistent with the requirements of the University’s “SHRA Corrective and Disciplinary Action Policy” (AX-#), based on a preponderance of the evidence provided.
‘Just Cause’ Defined
Per the University’s “SHRA Corrective and Disciplinary Action Policy”:
“Just cause” is the substantive basis for the discipline or dismissal of an employee. When just cause exists, any employee subject to this policy, regardless of occupation, position or profession, may be warned, demoted, suspended, or dismissed by management in accordance with the provisions of this policy. The supervisor’s determination of just cause for disciplinary action shall be reasonable, based on the provisions of this policy, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory and factually supported.
There are three types of just cause for disciplinary action:
· unsatisfactory job performance
· grossly inefficient job performance
· unacceptable personal conduct
A single disciplinary action may include one or more categories of just cause. No disciplinary action shall be invalid solely because the disciplinary action is labeled incorrectly.
and
Just cause for unsatisfactory job performance occurs when an employee fails to meet job requirements as established by the position’s job description, the employee’s work plan, related performance expectations, and/or as otherwise directed by management, and includes but is not limited to
· failure to produce a sufficient quantity of work
· failure to produce work of acceptable quality
· failure to produce accurate work
· failure to produce work on time
· poor manner of work performance
· continued tardiness, absenteeism or other abuses of leave
· a rating of Below Good or Unsatisfactory on the overall rating or on a specific performance category for at least two consecutive performance reviews (may be annual or mid-cycle) spanning at least six months
and
Before issuing a dismissal for unsatisfactory job performance, the employee must have
· At least two active disciplinary actions of any type (which may or may not be related to the current incident), and
· A current incident of unsatisfactory job performance, and
· A pre-disciplinary conference (PDC) must have been held.
Relevant Background and Key Events:
Ms. NAME (“Grievant”) began employment with the INSTITUTION as a JOB CLASS in the DEPT on DATE. She was promoted to a JOB CLASS on DATE. Her duties included DUTIES (see Performance Plans RX-10 through RX-13). The Grievant’s previous supervisor was Dr. NAME (“Witness 1”).
Ms. NAME (“Supervisor”) began employment with the INSTITUTION on DATE. Since then, she has been JOB CLASS IN DEPT, and she had supervised the Grievant until the Grievant’s dismissal.
The Grievant had no disciplinary actions on record prior to the events related to this grievance.
5-30-2015 / 2015-16 Performance Plan (RX-50)
Brief summary
07-26-2015 / Documented Counseling (RX-6)
Brief summary
10-20-2015 / Off-cycle Performance Review (RX-7)
The Supervisor’s comments for individual goal #3 (RX-13.6) include:
Brief summary
05-18-2016 / 2016-17 Annual Performance Appraisal (RX-8)
The Supervisor’s comments for individual goal #3 (RX-11.5) include:
Brief summary
05-30-2016 / 2016-17 Performance Plan (RX-9)
Brief summary
08-04-2016 / Documented Counseling (RX-10)
Brief summary
10-01-2016 / Off-cycle Performance Review (RX-11)
Brief summary
11-17-2016 / First Written Warning for Unsatisfactory Job Performance (AX-1)
Brief summary
1-16-2017 / Second Written Warning for Unsatisfactory Job Performance (AX-2)
Brief summary
02-28-2017 / Notice to Attend a Pre-Disciplinary Conference (AX-3)
Brief summary
03-02-2017 / Disciplinary Decision of Dismissal (AX-4)
Brief summary
Timeline of Grievance:
DATE / Grievant filed a Step 1 Grievance with the Office of Human Resources.
DATE / Step 1 Mediation held with Grievant and Witness X, resulting in an impasse.
DATE / Grievant filed a Step 2 Grievance with the Office of Human Resources.
DATE / Step 2 Hearing held.
DATE / Panel Chair filed Hearing Report with the Vice/Chancellor.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Brief encapsulation of the key points argued by the Respondent (should be addressed in the issues section)
1. X
2. X
3. X
4. X
5. x
Summary of Grievant’s Case:
Brief encapsulation of the key points argued by the Grievant (should be addressed in the issues section)
1. x
2. x
3. x
4. x
5. x
Conclusions Based on Information Provided:
Issue #1: / Procedural Requirements for Just Cause
Did Management meet all applicable procedural requirements?
Conclusion: Yes.
1) Two written warnings (AX-1 and AX-2) were active prior to the PDC/Dismissal, as required by policy. Although policy does not require that the individual disciplinary actions must be related in content, in this case, all three actions were on the same performance issue.
2) A notice to attend a pre-disciplinary conference was issued to the employee (AX-3) as required by policy.
3) A pre-disciplinary conference was held prior to the issuance of the dismissal decision (AX-4) as required by policy.
4) The dismissal decision was issued within two business days of the PDC as required by policy.
The Panel finds that the disciplinary procedures were followed by management.
Issue #2: / Awareness of Performance Expectations
Was the Grievant aware of the performance expectations for the duties cited by management in the disciplinary actions?
Conclusion: Yes/No.
1) X
2) X
3) x
Issue #3: / Notice of Performance Deficiency
Did the Grievant receive sufficient notice of management’s dissatisfaction with the Grievant’s performance?
Conclusion: Yes/No.
1) X
2) X
3) x
Issue #4: / Opportunity to Correct Deficiencies
Did the Grievant have opportunity to correct the performance deficiencies cited by management in the disciplinary actions?
Conclusion: Yes/No.
1) X
2) X
3) x
Issue #5: / Resources to Correct Deficiencies
Did the Grievant have sufficient information and resources in order to correct the performance deficiencies cited by management in the disciplinary actions?
Conclusion: Yes/No.
1) X
2) X
3) x
Issue #6: / Equitable Disciplinary Action
Was the disciplinary action consistent with the disciplinary actions of similarly situated employees?
Conclusion: Yes/No.
1) X
2) X
3) x
Issue #7: / Severity of Discipline
Was the severity of the disciplinary action appropriate to the issue?
Conclusion: Yes/No.
1) X
2) X
3) x
Issue #8: / Just Cause for Dismissal
Based on the preceding responses, has management shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it had just cause for dismissal?
Conclusion: Yes/No.
In summary, the Panel finds that:
1) X
2) X
3) X
Hearing Panel/Officer Recommendation to the Vice Chancellor:
The Panel unanimously recommends that the grievance be affirmed/denied and the dismissal be reversed/upheld.
Signatures of Hearing Panel/Officer:
Panel Chair/Officer / Panelist / Panelist
Date: / Date: / Date:
Equal Opportunity Employer [UNIVERSITY NAME] Page 4 of 7