I spent four hours crafting a six-page argument detailing each contract violation. The UO's representative from the Grad School was out sick, but she, too, came in and spent some time making careful arguments about the case. Her document was also about six pages, with many pages of supporting documents.
We got the decision yesterday and, aside from some boilerplate, here is the judgment that the UO's grievance officer came to after carefully weighing the twelve pages of argument, plus the supporting documents, detailing ten allegations of contract violation:
Lesson learned.
The GTFF alleged that the Art Department failed to give preference to applicants who are further advanced in the program. However, there are other factors that are also given special consideration with respect to assignments such as a student’s special skills. Therefore, it was not proven that the Art Department failed to give preference to applicants who are further advanced in the program.
1 comment:
"We agreed to do something without special provisions. We think that those special provisions are better than what we might have agreed to (and of course we know best). Therefore, we are going to keep doing what we are doing."
I can't imagine what an arbitrator would think when s/he saw that.
Post a Comment