California Faculty Association v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Read Summary
Summary

The language used in a contract between a university and a faculty member should cover all possible situations, but this is practically impossible. Any contract can lead to situations that can only be resolved by a court or arbitrator’s decision. Therefore, excluding a fair review procedure from the contract would undermine the right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental human rights law. To protect both parties, additional provisions can be included in the representations and warranties” clause, establishing the grievant’s obligation to recognize the administration and peers’ decision in good faith and not apply for judicial or arbitration judgment without extreme necessity. To protect the employee’s interests, a specific clause can be introduced into the contract, stating that in case the court or an arbitration body ruled in favor of the employee, the university would provide tenure. This construction makes it possible for an arbitrator to provide tenure without a direct order. However, tenure is not a remedy, but rather a kind of academic recognition that an arbitrator cannot award. If an arbitrator finds that discriminative practices did occur, it can rule in favor of the grievant, creating an obligation for the university. Alternative decisions like repeating the tenure procedure by the same body or applying to independent colleagues in other universities to render a decision based on the provided information are also possible.”

Table of Content

The language of contract should ideally cover all possible situations in the relations between a university and a faculty-member, however this is practically impossible. Any contract can cause situations which may be resolved only by a court or arbitrator’s decision. Thusly, exclusion of a fair review procedure from the contract would undermine a right to a fair trial – one of the most basic fundamentals in human rights law. In order to protect the university administration and the peers, the parties may include some additional provisions to the “representations and warranties” clause establishing grievant obligation to recognize the administration and peers’ decision in good faith and not to apply for judicial or arbitration judgment without extreme necessity. On the other hand, in order to protect the employee’s interests, a specific clause may be introduced to a contract reading like: “in case the court or an arbitration body ruled in favor of the employee by finding that there existed sufficient grounds for application, the University undertakes to provide tenure”.

Such construction makes it possible for an arbitrator to provide tenure without a direct order. Tenure is not a remedy in fact, rather it is a kind of academic recognition, which an arbitrator is not capable to award. On the other hand, in case an arbitrator finds that discriminative practices did occur, it can just rule in favor of a grievant thusly creating an obligation for a university, which can be later supported in another trial. Some alternative decisions like order to repeat the tenure procedure by the same body or apply to an independent colleagues in other universities and ask them to render a decision on tenure based on provided information are also possible.

 

Cite this page

California Faculty Association v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County. (2016, Nov 27). Retrieved from

https://graduateway.com/california-faculty-association-v-the-superior-court-of-santa-clara-county/

Remember! This essay was written by a student

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Order custom paper Without paying upfront