A. Grievances and complaints are usually personnel matters. The grievant or complainant should be assured that all matters will be kept confidential. However, the grievant or complainant must be informed that the guarantee of confidentiality does not preclude the MSFF Grievance Committee , its chair or its individual members from consulting with the MSFF Steering Committee, its members or the officers of the MSFF about the relevant issues. Hence, should the grievant or complainant wish that their name not be disclosed to the Steering Committee or officers, such notation should be made in writing and included in the grievance or complaint file.

B. Should it occur that provision of legal services for resolution of the grievance or complaint must be considered by the Steering Committee or officers, it may be necessary to disclose the name and department of the individual to determine the merits of the case. Therefore, the grievant or complainant must be informed at the point of initiation of the action that such disclosure may become necessary.

I. The Handbook is the “controlling document,” determining the legal content of faculty employment contracts.

2. Administrative violations of the Handbook may ultimately require that the MSFF obtain legal advice or representation for the resolution of the grievance.

3. A faculty member/MSFF member who files a grievance must exhaust all Handbook specified processes or Equal Employment Act required processes for resolving the alleged issues, although the MSFF Grievance Committee may request that the local president obtain legal advice as those processes unfold.

4. The faculty member/MSFF member who files a grievance is entitled to have a representative present with him/her at all meetings with administrative personnel or faculty committees. The representative should keep a detailed record of all such meetings and include the information in the grievance file.

5. Legal representation will be provided to the grievant upon the determination of necessity by the MSFF Grievance Committee with approval of the local President. As an interim step, the Grievance Committee may decide to also consult with the MSFF Steering Committee at either a regularly scheduled meeting or at a special meeting called for the purpose. If a special meeting needs to be called, the Chair of the Grievance Committee may issue the call for the meeting or request that one of the officers of the local do so.

6. Grievances that can only be resolved by payment of monetary damages are not handled by the MSFF nor does the MSFF provide support for legal counsel in legal action for monetary damages.

a. The grievant who seeks monetary damages should be referred to the Union Plus benefit which pays for a brief consultation with Union Plus approved legal counsel.

b. Grievants who employ their own legal counsel of his/her choice shall be solely responsible for the fees and expenses of such counsel.

c. Grievants who employ their own legal counsel before consulting with the MSFF and who intend to maintain their own legal counsel shall not obtain counsel from the MSFF attorney. To clarify, the grievant cannot maintain their own legal counsel and simultaneously use MSFF legal counsel.

1. Examples of complaints may include, but are not limited to, working condition matters, safety matters and allocation of resource issues.

2. Complaints do not usually require legal representation for resolution. In the event that a complaint does require legal intervention, the MSFF Grievance Committee or its chair should recommend extraordinary action to the Steering Committee and officers of the MSFF for consideration.

3. Complaints that can only be resolved by payment of monetary damages are not handled by the MSFF nor does the MSFF provide support for legal counsel in legal action for monetary damages.

A. MSFF members are enrolled in the Legal Liability Policy as part of their membership.

B. The MSFF Grievance Committee must refer all claims under the Legal Liability Policy/Legal Action Trust to the president of the local.

C. Henceforward, authorization to make a claim under the policy must be approved by the local president who refers the claim to the President of AFT Colorado. The President of AFT Colorado, upon his/her approval, refers the claim to AFT Plus.

1. Defense costs up to $250,000 per member per year for suits involving the denial of constitutional rights.

2. Up to $1.000,000 per member per year for inadvertent acts or omissions – including “failure to educate.”

3. Defense costs up to $35,000 per member per year for criminal charges arising out of educational activities where there is completed exoneration. However, if criminal proceedings result from corporal punishment, the reimbursement of defense costs up to $35,000 will be made regardless of the outcome.

4. Up to $5,000 for defense of covered claims in licensure board or credential hearings resulting from educational employment activities.

5. If an insured member is assaulted while engaged in his or her normal professional duties, this Plan could provide:

a. Up to $250 for damages to the member’s personal property ( other than vehicles) when the damage is the result of an assault to the member and if the member has no other insurance.

b. And a $10,000 assault death benefit – regardless of other insurance – in the event the member dies within ninety days.

1. Is there any possibility that the MSFF can resolve the grievance or complaint successfully?

2. How broadly does the issue behind the complaint or grievance affect our members or our students?

3. Even if the issue does not have broad implications for our members, does it appear that our member will fail without our help?

4. If the complainant or grievant is not an MSFF member, is the issue still of such overwhelming importance to the well being of our members or students that it would be essential to help?

5. Will working to resolve the grievance or complaint help us to achieve other objectives? (Growing our membership? Solidifying our right to represent the interests of faculty and legitimizing our role in representing them?)

6. Has there been any “harm?”

7. Is our representation necessary to insure due process even if the outcome may not be successful?

1. Decisions about taking legal action are balancing acts and take careful discretion. Due process is essential to protecting our legal rights. Often, our participation helps to make sure due process is upheld. Legal action is expensive. We can rarely afford to carry the cost ourselves and must ask for help from AFT Colorado and national AFT. It is by no means a given that such help will always be approved. Therefore, recommendations for legal action should be a last resort. However, with that said, where a member is confronted with disciplinary action under potential dismissal for cause, problems under PTR, or other Handbook matters where the future of their employment is at stake, it is advisable to consult legal counsel. The grievant or complainant should be informed that just because we are consulting our attorney does not imply we will be seeking legal remedy, but will instead explore all options first.

2. Bringing in the lawyers also “ups the ante.” Our experience has been that once the lawyers are involved other mechanisms for resolution tend to be ignored.

A. Non-tenured faculty: are effectively “at will” until they achieve tenure. We’ve learned from experience that there is little we can do to help someone keep their job if they are not yet tenured.

However. if the non-tenured faculty member believes their contract is not being renewed because of discrimination under the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (racism, sexism, ageism, certain classes of medical conditions, etc.,) we can recommend they seek consultation with an attorney who specializes in such cases. The result of such cases, where they are successful, and that is rare, is usually payment of damages rather than preservation of their employment status. Hence, this does not fall under the type of grievance we undertake.

B. Temporary and adjunct faculty: New language in the Handbook as of 2013 means that contingent faculty are no longer ”at will” employees. Depending on the grievance or complaint, the MSFF may be able to advise an informal strategy or there may be legal strategies. As above, if the temporary faculty or adjunct believes their contract is not being renewed because of discrimination under the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (racism, sexism, ageism, certain classes of medical conditions, etc .. ) we can recommend they seek consultation with an attorney who specializes in such cases.

A. We will not take legal action on behalf of one MSFF member against another member. Nor will we take legal action on behalf of an MSFF member against another faculty member who is not a member.

The grievance and complaint procedure addresses actions taken by the administration, not fellow bargaining unit members or potential members. We may recommend mediation in these situations and should be prepared to pay for such mediation.

B. Member chairs of departments are defined as faculty as per VI. A., immediately above. Where chairs serve in a supervisory capacity the issue becomes problematic and grievance/complaint matters by them against faculty, or against them by faculty, must be considered carefully and with restraint. Mediation, with the costs carried by the local, may be the best recommendation.

C. Members will occasionally present the Grievance Committee with an issue that threatens their best interests. but is not within our purview to pursue because such matters do not concern their status as faculty.

D. AHEC is exempt from OSHA guidelines. Therefore, workplace safety issues sometimes require the hiring of outside consultants to determine the extent of the danger to our members. The best option is that the MSFF chooses a reputable consultant and that the administration pays the cost. We have negotiated this in the past. However, where the administration (or AHEC) insists on using their own experts, we should. to protect our members, ask to see the credentials of such experts and check their references.

Where such an expert does not seem reputable, the Grievance Committee should require that the administration find a more qualified person, or we should be prepared to pay for an independent examination.