Register Article Regarding Jeffries' Unemployment Hearings
According to the article, "Jeffries' attorney asked Stewart whether he felt that the threat of having to repay one's salary for criticizing the school created an 'intimidating and fearsome situation' for the faculty," to which Dr. Stewart responded, "'It would certainly be difficult, yes'."
The Register interviewed a number of officials at other Iowa colleges regarding the issue of whether faculty ought to be free to criticize administrators. Bruce Haddox, vice president of academic affairs at Simpson College (whose position is comparable to Dr. Stewart's at UD) is reported to have said, "Generally speaking, faculty are trained and bred to criticize [...]. What would life be without faculty criticizing the administration?"
Indeed.
posted by WhatWendtWrong at 3:26 PM
26 Comments:
Thanks for posting this! It is good to see some activity here again.
How does the UD gag rule for faculty come from a "reformed perspective," as Stewart is quoted as saying to the DM Register reporter? One of the most valuable aspects of the Reformed tradition is the value of education, questioning, and struggling for truth. The gag rule at UD seems incongruent with that tradition (and with the idea of a Christian university).
Given that the judge in the unemployment case has ruled twice in favor of Jeffries, the UD administration ought to read the writing on the wall....
When you don't want criticism and even will punish if criticized, it means that the administrators are insecure or that the board of trustees have something to hide--or both.
Of course, when you have a board of trustees which has the old business attitude that the relationship is one of employer-employee instead of a collegial one, it means that it understands nothing about how universities are run and also means that they will want the faculty "to be on the team--or else."
The mediocrity of this board, individually and collectively, and of past UD boards have destroyed a fine faculty and provided a university with fine buildings instead of a fine faculty. It will have to provide the personnel to clean these new buildings and to provide the utilities to run. The university may yet fail.
How can anything ever be "reformed" if there is no criticism? Can any sort of reformation happen when everyone just says that things are fine and dandy?
It's nice to see an update on this site! Welcome back, Editors!
I have what might be a silly question: if the faculty are co-managers, as UD's administration claims, why can't they assist in managing the school in a meaningful way? By isolating the faculty and simultaneously claiming that professors are "co-managers," UD's administrators seem to be engaging in nothing more and nothing less than misleading rhetoric.
I would, in short, like to know what it means to be a co-manager at an institution like UD. As far as I can tell, it is just an insincere way to speak, which allows administrators (that is, the real managers) to be able to fire employees in ways that may otherwise be impermissible.
On a related note: I am deeply offended and outraged that professed ministers of the Reformed tradition would reference that tradition as justification for treating employees in an unjust manner. The administrators should at least have the decency to be honest and forthright with their reasons. To cloak what is debatably unjust treatment of faculty in Christian terms is not only disturbing in its own right, but it may serve to confuse both those who have only a cursory understanding of the tradition and those who have only a cursory understanding of the circumstances surrounding the terminations/dismissals/resignations of faculty. Why not be transparent, rather than elusive? What is there to protect? Certainly not credibility; that seems to be swirling down the drain with each additional newspaper article, blog post, and the undoubtedly hundreds of "did you know..." comments that students, alums, and "others" have circulated.
-A former UD student.
It should be added:
The way the Register article puts matters, Professor Jeffries was concerned with these very questions (see immediately above). What would a Christian institution have to hide about its practices? Why would it be (seemingly) in principle opposed to criticism? What is wrong with one conceeding that one makes mistakes? Isn't that how redemption is achieved or sought?
I can certainly be counted as one alum who is willing to forgive my alma mater for what I think have been wrong actions, but I have not seen any willingness on the part of UD's administrators to enter into the process of seeking redemption. I see only facades. I hear and read only hollow catch-phrases. And I perceive what I can only describe as arrogance and disregard.
I can't believe the seminary I attended actually is involved in something like this. UD should spend less time firing tnured faculty and more time teaching its admenistrators about the real Reform Tradition. Perhaps a class in Reform Christian Heritage is a good start.
Calvin is Back.....No school today.
Interesting Reading Directly from Iowa Unemployment case...Maybe my fellow seminary bloggers can link from this blog?
Keep up the fight, even from the East!
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
The University of Dubuque filed a timely appeal from the September 19, 2005, reference 02, decision that allowed benefits. After due notice was issued, a hearing was held on December 7, 2005. Claimant Paul Jeffries participated personally and was represented by Attorney Dorothy O'Brien. Attorney Brendan Quann represented the employer and presented testimony through Vice President of Academic Affairs John Stewart and Director of Human Resources Rima Britt. Exhibits One through Ten, A, B, and C were received into evidence. The hearing in this matter was consolidated with the hearing in Appeal Number 05A-UI-09445-JT and the findings of facts address both matters. The administrative law judge hereby takes official notice reasoning, conclusions of law, and decision entered in 05A-UI-09445-JT.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Having reviewed all of the evidence in the record, the administrative law judge finds: Dr. Paul Jeffries was employed by the University of Dubuque as a full-time Associate Professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department until May 15, 2005, when his 2004-2005 Faculty Contract of Employment expired. The tenure-track contract covered Dr. Jeffries' employment during the period of August 15, 2004 to May 15, 2005. Dr. Jeffries had executed a similar annual contract since commencing the employment.
The University of Dubuque and Dr. Jeffries contemplated significant changes in Dr. Jeffries' duties during 2005. In a letter dated March 23, 2005, University President Jeffrey Bullock appointed Dr. Jeffries to the position of Wendt University Professor. As such, Dr. Jeffries would spearhead the Wendt Character Initiative "to encourage and promote character education and character formation among faculty, staff, students, trustees, and alumni." In addition, Dr. Jeffries would "articulate the Initiative to external publics." Dr. Jeffries' appointment would be renewed with his 2005-2006 contract and renewed annually thereafter. Pursuant to the new appointment, Dr. Jeffries would be released from fifty percent of his regular faculty duties and responsibilities. Pursuant to the letter of March 23, 2005, Dr. Jeffries compensation would not change as a result of his duties and responsibilities. President Bullock concluded the letter as follows: "I welcome you to this new and exciting venture to promote the Wendt Character Initiative and the University, a venture that promises to define the institution in future years." The letter contained blanks for appropriate signatures. President Bullock signed the document on March 31, 2005. Vice President for Academic Affairs John Stewart had signed the document on March 29, 2005. Dr. Bullock instructed Dr. Jeffries to sign the document as an indication of his acceptance of the appointment, and return it to Director of Human Resources Rima Britt. Dr. Jeffries signed the document on April 15, 2005. However, Dr. Jeffries crossed out the sentence in the document that said there would be no change in his annual compensation. Dr. Jeffries delivered the document to Ms. Britt. Dr. Jeffries did not bring his amendment of the document to the University's attention and the amendment escaped the attention of the University's administration.
Dr. Jeffries also received tenure in 2005. By a letter dated May 17, 2005, Board of Trustees Chairperson Joseph Chlapaty notified Dr. Jeffries that he had been recommended for tenure and that the Board of Trustees had voted to grant him tenure effective Fall 2005.
By a document dated June 1, 2005, President Bullock and Vice President of Academic Affairs Stewart offered Dr. Jeffries a Faculty Contract of Employment to cover the period of August 15, 2005 to May 15, 2006. Dr. Jeffries received the document on June 6. The contract indicated that Dr. Jeffries' rank would be Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion and Wendt University Professor. The contract indicated that the Wendt University Professor position was a 50% time appointment to "speak and think broadly about the Initiative for the University and the University community." Dr. Jeffries' annual salary would be $42,660. The contract indicated that it was a tenure contract, as opposed to the previous years' tenure-track contracts.
The contract contained a liquidated damages provision that Dr. Jeffries found troubling in light of his responsibility to spearhead the University-wide Wendt Character Initiative. An identical provision had appeared in each of Dr. Jeffries' prior contracts and the University included the provision in all faculty contracts. The provision reads as follows:
The Employee agrees that he shall not knowingly release, or authorize or cause the release of any disparaging, denigrating, or otherwise critical statements by the Employee to any public media source concerning the educational programs or services offered by the University, nor shall Employee interfere, or attempt to interfere with the relationship between the University and any of its alumni, students, or prospective students. Violation of any of the provisions of this paragraph shall entitle the University to recover the full amount of all sums paid from the University to the Employee under this Contract as liquidated damages as well as any other or further damages that may be recoverable by the University as a result of any such violation at law or in equity.
Dr. Jeffries concluded that being appointed to act as the University's conscience, ethics adviser and/or moral agitator would place him at increased risk of violating the speech-limiting aspect of the provision and at increased risk of having the liquidated damages provision invoked against him. Dr. Jeffries also concluded that the prominence of the Wendt University Professorship justified a salary commensurate with the University's other top faculty and/or administrators.
The 2005-2006 Faculty Contract of Employment indicated it would not be binding on the University of Dubuque unless signed by President Bullock and Vice President Stewart signed their approval and Dr. Jeffries signed it within 21 days of the presentation. The contract also indicated that the University could rescind the offer of employment in writing at any time prior to acceptance. President Bullock signed on May 31. Vice President Stewart signed on June 1. In light of duties that required Dr. Jeffries to be away from campus for an extended period, Vice President Stewart extended the deadline for Dr. Jeffries' acceptance of the contract into July. On June 30, via an e-mail message to Vice President Stewart and Wendt Center Director Carlyle Haaland, Dr. Jeffries expressed his concerns regarding the provision limiting his speech and calling for liquidated damages. Dr. Jeffries made his argument for an increased salary, but demanded no specific amount. Dr. Jeffries also asked for further consideration of the structuring of his duties in the event he departed from his Wendt University Professorship duties. Dr. Jeffries was under the belief that his concerns would lead to further discussion and an agreed upon resolution of the concerns.
Vice President Stewart was displeased with Dr. Jeffries' response to the offered contract and decided on a course of rescinding both the award of tenure and the Wendt University Professorship. Dr. Stewart enlisted the assistance of the employer's legal counsel, who deemed Dr. Jeffries June 30 e-mail message a counteroffer to and rejection of the University of Dubuque's offer of employment. It was about this time that the employer first took note or decided to act upon Dr. Jeffries' deletion of the sentence concerning salary in the letter dated March 23. Vice President Stewart believed that Dr. Jeffries deletion of the sentence and his request for greater compensation was unethical.
During a meeting on July 15, Vice President Stewart advised Dr. Jeffries that the University of Dubuque deemed Dr. Jeffries' deletion of the sentence regarding salary in the letter dated March 23 a counteroffer to, or rejection of, the appointment to the Wendt University Professorship and the 2005-2006 tenure-contract. Vice President Stewart advised Dr. Jeffries that the administration now deemed Dr. Jeffries unfit for the Wendt University Professorship and that Dr. Jeffries was no longer being considered for the position. Vice President Stewart advised Dr. Jeffries that the administration did not intend to tender any further offers, including any offers of tenured employment.
The University of Dubuque had not yet rescinded the tenure-contract offer in writing, as called for in the contract document. On July 18, Dr. Jeffries signed the 2005-2006 Faculty Contract of Employment and backdated his signature on the documents to July 13, 2005. On July 19, Dr. Jeffries delivered to Vice President Stewart's office the two "originals" of the 2005-2006 Faculty Contract of Employment.
Vice President Stewart had no direct contact with Dr. Jeffries after July 15. Though Dr. Jeffries had no assigned duties during the summer, he continued to work on University business.
On July 27, Vice President Stewart sent an e-mail message to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees. Vice President Stewart outlined what had transpired since the Trustees approved a tenure-contract for Dr. Jeffries. Vice President Stewart related that he had relied upon advice received by the University's legal counsel in deciding to treat Dr. Jeffries' concerns as counteroffers and had withdrawn the tenure-contract. Vice President Stewart related that University of Dubuque's legal counsel had alerted President Bullock and Vice President Stewart that the administration currently had no contract whatsoever with Dr. Jeffries. Vice President Stewart asked the Board "to extend a different, non-tenure contract." [Emphasis added.]
By a document presented to Dr. Jeffries on August 3, 2005, President Bullock offered Dr. Jeffries a "Probationary Tenure-track" Faculty Contract of Employment to cover the period of August 22, 2005 to May 16, 2006. Though the document indicated on its face that the University would not be bound unless the agreement was approved by the President and the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Vice President Stewart did not sign the document. Instead, Director of Human Resources Rima Britt signed Vice President Stewart's name and dated the signature August 2, 2005. The document indicated that Dr. Jeffries would have the rank of Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies. The document indicated that Dr. Jeffries would be reviewed for tenure eligibility during the 2006-2007 academic year. The document indicated it would not be binding on the University unless Dr. Jeffries signed the document within two days.
On August 3, Dr. Jeffries participated in a telephone meeting with President Bullock. At that time, President Bullock advised Dr. Jeffries that he had two days to sign the contract or he would no longer have a job at the University. President Bullock advised Dr. Jeffries that he was acting with the authority of the Board of Trustees. On August 5, by a letter to Director of Human Resources Rima Britt, Dr. Jeffries refused to sign the contract presented on August 2 and asserted that he had previously accepted the contract presented on June 1. Dr. Jeffries added, "I look forward to continuing my service to the University as a tenured professor and returning to my teaching at the University in a few weeks."
On August 10, Director of Human Resources Rima Britt instructed Dr. Jeffries to turn in his University keys, ID, and parking tag. Ms. Britt advised Dr. Jeffries that his computer access, e-mail, and office telephone access had been terminated. Ms. Britt instructed Dr. Jeffries to clear out his office by 8:00 a.m. on August 15, 2005. Finally, Ms. Britt instructed Dr. Jeffries to meet with her once he had cleaned out his office, to complete paperwork to terminate his benefits and discuss a COBRA insurance plan.
Thereafter, Dr. Jeffries contemplated taking legal action against the University of Dubuque and/or President Bullock. Dr. Jeffries' legal counsel and the University of Dubuque's legal counsel corresponded with regard to this matter. As a means of fortifying the employer's position in the face of possible legal action, the employer's legal counsel prepared a new Faculty Contract of Employment and included this document in his response to Dr. Jeffries' attorney's demand letter. An exact date for the University's attorney's response is not available, but it appears to have taken place in the middle of September. This document is based on the University's "Probationary Tenure-track" Faculty Contract of Employment. However, the document omits the language concerning the University of Dubuque not being bound until the document is approved by the President and Vice President. The document also omits a deadline for acceptance. The document bore neither the signature of the President nor the Vice President. The University of Dubuque's legal counsel further indicated that the employer would leave the offer open for the duration of the period referenced in the contract or until rescinded by the employer. The employer's counsel referenced Dr. Jeffries duty to mitigate damages under a civil suit and specifically referenced the employer's offer as a means to do so.
Dr. Jeffries established a claim for benefits that was effective August 14, 2005, and has received benefits.
REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The issue is whether the evidence in the record establishes that Dr. Jeffries refused as suitable offer of employment from a former employer. It does not.
871 IAC 24.24(8) provides:
(8) Refusal disqualification jurisdiction. Both the offer of work or the order to apply for work and the claimant's accompanying refusal must occur within the individual's benefit year, as defined in subrule 24.1(21), before the Iowa code subsection 96.5(3) disqualification can be imposed. It is not necessary that the offer, the order, or the refusal occur in a week in which the claimant filed a weekly claim for benefits before the disqualification can be imposed.
871 IAC 24.24(1)a provides:
(1) Bona fide offer of work.
a. In deciding whether or not a claimant failed to accept suitable work, or failed to apply for suitable work, it must first be established that a bona fide offer of work was made to the individual by personal contact or that a referral was offered to the claimant by personal contact to an actual job opening and a definite refusal was made by the individual. For purposes of a recall to work, a registered letter shall be deemed to be sufficient as a personal contact.
871 IAC 24.24(14)(a)(b) provides:
Failure to accept work and failure to apply for suitable work. Failure to accept work and failure to apply for suitable work shall be removed when the individual shall have worked in (except in back pay awards) and been paid wages for insured work equal to ten times the individual's weekly benefit amount, provided the individual is otherwise eligible.
(14) Employment offer from former employer.
a. The claimant shall be disqualified for a refusal of work with a former employer if the work offered is reasonably suitable and comparable and is within the purview of the usual occupation of the claimant. The provisions of Iowa Code section 96.5(3)"b" are controlling in the determination of suitability of work.
b. The employment offer shall not be considered suitable if the claimant had previously quit the former employer and the conditions which caused the claimant to quit are still in existence.
Iowa Code section 96.5-3-b provides:
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
3. Failure to accept work. If the department finds that an individual has failed, without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when directed by the department or to accept suitable work when offered that individual. The department shall, if possible, furnish the individual with the names of employers which are seeking employees. The individual shall apply to and obtain the signatures of the employers designated by the department on forms provided by the department. However, the employers may refuse to sign the forms. The individual's failure to obtain the signatures of designated employers, which have not refused to sign the forms, shall disqualify the individual for benefits until requalified. To requalify for benefits after disqualification under this subsection, the individual shall work in and be paid wages for insured work equal to ten times the individual's weekly benefit amount, provided the individual is otherwise eligible.
b. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no work shall be deemed suitable and benefits shall not be denied under this chapter to any otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new work under any of the following conditions:
(1) If the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute;
(2) If the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality;
(3) If as a condition of being employed, the individual would be required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization.
The preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that the University of Dubuque's August 3 offer of employment was a bonafide offer, but that the subsequent offer of employment was not a bonafide offer. Dr. Jeffries rejected the August 3 offer prior to establishing his claim for benefits, and the refusal would not, therefore, disqualify him for benefits. See 871 IAC 24.24(8). The evidence in the record establishes that Dr. Jeffries refused the University of Dubuque's bonafide offer of "probationary tenure-track" employment for good cause. The good cause was based on significant changes in the contract of hire and the employer's intentional creation of intolerable and/or detrimental working conditions. See 871 IAC 24.26(1) and (4). For these same reasons, the employment offered was not "reasonably suitable." See 871 IAC 24.24(14)(a). Dr. Jeffries' acceptance of the offer of employment would have amounted to acquiescence to the newly created intolerable and/or detrimental working conditions. See Olson v. Employment Appeal Board, 460 N.W.2d 865 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990). Dr. Jeffries had previously quit the employment for good cause attributable to the employer, and the conditions that caused the quit are still in existence. See 871 IAC 24.24(14)(b).
Based on the evidence in the record and application of the appropriate law, the administrative law judge concludes that Dr. Jeffries did not refuse a suitable offer of employment. Accordingly, Dr. Jeffries is eligible for benefits, provided he is otherwise eligible.
DECISION:
The Agency representative's September 19, 2005, reference 02, decision is affirmed. The claimant did not refuse a suitable offer of employment from his former employer. The claimant is eligible for benefits, provided he is otherwise eligible.
jt/kjw
Calvin says
More interesting reading. This is a different document. I really am not sure how they differ. They must represent different meetings as UD seems to keep appealing Paul's unemployment but I am not sure.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
The University of Dubuque filed a timely appeal from the September 7, 2005, reference 01, decision that allowed benefits. After due notice was issued, a hearing was held on December 7, 2005. Claimant Paul Jeffries participated personally and was represented by Attorney Dorothy O'Brien. Attorney Brendan Quann represented the employer and presented testimony through Vice President of Academic Affairs John Stewart and Director of Human Resources Rima Britt. Exhibits One through Ten, A, B, and C were received into evidence. The hearing in this matter was consolidated with the hearing in Appeal Number 05A-UI-09903-JT, and the Findings of Facts address both matters.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Having reviewed all of the evidence in the record, the administrative law judge finds: Dr. Paul Jeffries was employed by the University of Dubuque as a full-time Associate Professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department until May 15, 2005, when his 2004-2005 Faculty Contract of Employment expired. The tenure-track contract covered Dr. Jeffries' employment during the period of August 15, 2004 to May 15, 2005. Dr. Jeffries had executed a similar annual contract since commencing the employment.
The University of Dubuque and Dr. Jeffries contemplated significant changes in Dr. Jeffries' duties during 2005. In a letter dated March 23, 2005, University President Jeffrey Bullock appointed Dr. Jeffries to the position of Wendt University Professor. As such, Dr. Jeffries would spearhead the Wendt Character Initiative "to encourage and promote character education and character formation among faculty, staff, students, trustees, and alumni." In addition, Dr. Jeffries would "articulate the Initiative to external publics." Dr. Jeffries' appointment would be renewed with his 2005-2006 contract and renewed annually thereafter. Pursuant to the new appointment, Dr. Jeffries would be released from fifty percent of his regular faculty duties and responsibilities. Pursuant to the letter of March 23, 2005, Dr. Jeffries compensation would not change as a result of his duties and responsibilities. President Bullock concluded the letter as follows: "I welcome you to this new and exciting venture to promote the Wendt Character Initiative and the University, a venture that promises to define the institution in future years." The letter contained blanks for appropriate signatures. President Bullock signed the document on March 31, 2005. Vice President for Academic Affairs John Stewart had signed the document on March 29, 2005. Dr. Bullock instructed Dr. Jeffries to sign the document as an indication of his acceptance of the appointment, and return it to Director of Human Resources Rima Britt. Dr. Jeffries signed the document on April 15, 2005. However, Dr. Jeffries crossed out the sentence in the document that said there would be no change in his annual compensation. Dr. Jeffries delivered the document to Ms. Britt. Dr. Jeffries did not bring his amendment of the document to the University's attention, and the amendment escaped the attention of the University's administration.
Dr. Jeffries also received tenure in 2005. By a letter dated May 17, 2005, Board of Trustees Chairperson Joseph Chlapaty notified Dr. Jeffries that he had been recommended for tenure and that the Board of Trustees had voted to grant him tenure effective Fall 2005.
By a document dated June 1, 2005, President Bullock and Vice President of Academic Affairs Stewart offered Dr. Jeffries a Faculty Contract of Employment to cover the period of August 15, 2005 to May 15, 2006. Dr. Jeffries received the document on June 6. The contract indicated that Dr. Jeffries' rank would be Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion and Wendt University Professor. The contract indicated that the Wendt University Professor position was a 50% time appointment to "speak and think broadly about the Initiative for the University and the University community." Dr. Jeffries' annual salary would be $42,660. The contract indicated that it was a tenure contract, as opposed to the previous years' tenure-track contracts.
The contract contained a liquidated damages provision that Dr. Jeffries found troubling in light of his responsibility to spearhead the University-wide Wendt Character Initiative. An identical provision had appeared in each of Dr. Jeffries' prior contracts and the University included the provision in all faculty contracts. The provision reads as follows:
The Employee agrees that he shall not knowingly release, or authorize or cause the release of any disparaging, denigrating, or otherwise critical statements by the Employee to any public media source concerning the educational programs or services offered by the University, nor shall Employee interfere, or attempt to interfere with the relationship between the University and any of its alumni, students, or prospective students. Violation of any of the provisions of this paragraph shall entitle the University to recover the full amount of all sums paid from the University to the Employee under this Contract as liquidated damages as well as any other or further damages that may be recoverable by the University as a result of any such violation at law or in equity.
Dr. Jeffries concluded that being appointed to act as the University's conscience, ethics adviser and/or moral agitator would place him at increased risk of violating the speech-limiting aspect of the provision and at increased risk of having the liquidated damages provision invoked against him. Dr. Jeffries also concluded that the prominence of the Wendt University Professorship justified a salary commensurate with the University's other top faculty and/or administrators.
The 2005-2006 Faculty Contract of Employment indicated it would not be binding on the University of Dubuque unless signed by President Bullock and Vice President Stewart signed their approval and Dr. Jeffries signed it within 21 days of the presentation. The contract also indicated that the University could rescind the offer of employment in writing at any time prior to acceptance. President Bullock signed on May 31. Vice President Stewart signed on June 1. In light of duties that required Dr. Jeffries to be away from campus for an extended period, Vice President Stewart extended the deadline for Dr. Jeffries' acceptance of the contract into July. On June 30, via an e-mail message to Vice President Stewart and Wendt Center Director Carlyle Haaland, Dr. Jeffries expressed his concerns regarding the provision limiting his speech and calling for liquidated damages. Dr. Jeffries made his argument for an increased salary, but demanded no specific amount. Dr. Jeffries also asked for further consideration of the structuring of his duties in the event he departed from his Wendt University Professorship duties. Dr. Jeffries was under the belief that his concerns would lead to further discussion and an agreed upon resolution of the concerns.
Vice President Stewart was displeased with Dr. Jeffries' response to the offered contract and decided on a course of rescinding both the award of tenure and the Wendt University Professorship. Dr. Stewart enlisted the assistance of the employer's legal counsel, who deemed Dr. Jeffries June 30 e-mail message a counteroffer to and rejection of the University of Dubuque's offer of employment. It was about this time that the employer first took note or decided to act upon Dr. Jeffries' deletion of the sentence concerning salary in the letter dated March 23. Vice President Stewart believed that Dr. Jeffries deletion of the sentence and his request for greater compensation was unethical.
During a meeting on July 15, Vice President Stewart advised Dr. Jeffries that the University of Dubuque deemed Dr. Jeffries' deletion of the sentence regarding salary in the letter dated March 23 a counteroffer to, or rejection of, the appointment to the Wendt University Professorship and the 2005-2006 tenure-contract. Vice President Stewart advised Dr. Jeffries that the administration now deemed Dr. Jeffries unfit for the Wendt University Professorship and that Dr. Jeffries was no longer being considered for the position. Vice President Stewart advised Dr. Jeffries that the administration did not intend to tender any further offers, including any offers of tenured employment.
The University of Dubuque had not yet rescinded the tenure-contract offer in writing, as called for in the contract document. On July 18, Dr. Jeffries signed the 2005-2006 Faculty Contract of Employment and backdated his signature on the documents to July 13, 2005. On July 19, Dr. Jeffries delivered to Vice President Stewart's office the two "originals" of the 2005-2006 Faculty Contract of Employment.
Vice President Stewart had no direct contact with Dr. Jeffries after July 15. Though Dr. Jeffries had no assigned duties during the summer, he continued to work on University business.
On July 27, Vice President Stewart sent an e-mail message to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees. Vice President Stewart outlined what had transpired since the Trustees approved a tenure-contract for Dr. Jeffries. Vice President Stewart related that he had relied upon advice received by the University's legal counsel in deciding to treat Dr. Jeffries' concerns as counteroffers and had withdrawn the tenure-contract. Vice President Stewart related that University of Dubuque's legal counsel had alerted President Bullock and Vice President Stewart that the administration currently had no contract whatsoever with Dr. Jeffries. Vice President Stewart asked the Board "to extend a different, non-tenure contract." [Emphasis added.]
By a document presented to Dr. Jeffries on August 3, 2005, President Bullock offered Dr. Jeffries a "Probationary Tenure-track" Faculty Contract of Employment to cover the period of August 22, 2005 to May 16, 2006. Though the document indicated on its face that the University would not be bound unless the agreement was approved by the President and the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Vice President Stewart did not sign the document. Instead, Director of Human Resources Rima Britt signed Vice President Stewart's name and dated the signature August 2, 2005. The document indicated that Dr. Jeffries would have the rank of Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies. The document indicated that Dr. Jeffries would be reviewed for tenure eligibility during the 2006-2007 academic year. The document indicated it would not be binding on the University unless Dr. Jeffries signed the document within two days.
On August 3, Dr. Jeffries participated in a telephone meeting with President Bullock. At that time, President Bullock advised Dr. Jeffries that he had two days to sign the contract or he would no longer have a job at the University. President Bullock advised Dr. Jeffries that he was acting with the authority of the Board of Trustees. On August 5, by a letter to Director of Human Resources Rima Britt, Dr. Jeffries refused to sign the contract presented on August 2 and asserted that he had previously accepted the contract presented on June 1. Dr. Jeffries added, "I look forward to continuing my service to the University as a tenured professor and returning to my teaching at the University in a few weeks."
On August 10, Director of Human Resources Rima Britt instructed Dr. Jeffries to turn in his University keys, ID, and parking tag. Ms. Britt advised Dr. Jeffries that his computer access, e-mail, and office telephone access had been terminated. Ms. Britt instructed Dr. Jeffries to clear out his office by 8:00 a.m. on August 15, 2005. Finally, Ms. Britt instructed Dr. Jeffries to meet with her once he had cleaned out his office, to complete paperwork to terminate his benefits and discuss a COBRA insurance plan.
Thereafter, Dr. Jeffries contemplated taking legal action against the University of Dubuque and/or President Bullock. Dr. Jeffries' legal counsel and the University of Dubuque's legal counsel corresponded with regard to this matter. As a means of fortifying the employer's position in the face of possible legal action, the employer's legal counsel prepared a new Faculty Contract of Employment and included this document in his response to Dr. Jeffries' attorney's demand letter. An exact date for the University's attorney's response is not available, but it appears to have taken place in the middle of September. This document is based on the University's "Probationary Tenure-track" Faculty Contract of Employment. However, the document omits the language concerning the University of Dubuque not being bound until the document is approved by the President and Vice President. The document also omits a deadline for acceptance. The document bore neither the signature of the President nor the Vice President. The University of Dubuque's legal counsel further indicated that the employer would leave the offer open for the duration of the period referenced in the contract or until rescinded by the employer. The employer's counsel referenced Dr. Jeffries duty to mitigate damages under a civil suit and specifically referenced the employer's offer as a means to do so.
Dr. Jeffries established a claim for benefits that was effective August 14, 2005, and has received benefits.
REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The issue is whether the evidence in the record establishes that Dr. Jeffries voluntarily quit the employment with good cause attributable to the employer. It does.
Iowa Code section 96.5-1 provides:
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
1. Voluntary quitting. If the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the individual's employer, if so found by the department.
871 IAC 24.26(1) provides:
Voluntary quit with good cause attributable to the employer and separations not considered to be voluntary quits. The following are reasons for a claimant leaving employment with good cause attributable to the employer:
(1) A change in the contract of hire. An employer's willful breach of contract of hire shall not be a disqualifiable issue. This would include any change that would jeopardize the worker's safety, health or morals. The change of contract of hire must be substantial in nature and could involve changes in working hours, shifts, remuneration, location of employment, drastic modification in type of work, etc. Minor changes in a worker's routine on the job would not constitute a change of contract of hire.
"Change in the contract of hire" means a substantial change in the terms or conditions of employment. See Wiese v. Iowa Dept. of Job Service, 389 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 1986). Generally, a substantial reduction in hours or pay will give an employee good cause for quitting. See Dehmel v. Employment Appeal Board, 433 N.W.2d 700 (Iowa 1988). In analyzing such cases, the Iowa Courts look at the impact on the claimant, rather than the employer's motivation. Id. An employee acquiesces in a change in the conditions of employment if he or she does not resign in a timely manner. See Olson v. Employment Appeal Board, 460 N.W.2d 865 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990).
Quits due to intolerable or detrimental working conditions are deemed to be for good cause attributable to the employer. See 871 IAC 24.25(4). However, before such a quit will be considered for good cause attributable to the employer, the evidence must show that before the claimant resigned (1) the employer was on notice of the condition, (2) the employer was on notice that the claimant might quit if the condition was not addressed, and (3) the employer had a reasonable opportunity to address the claimant's legitimate concerns. See Suluki v. Employment Appeal Board, 503 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 1993); Cobb v. Employment Appeal Board, 506 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 1993); and Swanson v. Employment Appeal Board, 554 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1996). The test is whether a reasonable person would have quit under the circumstances. See Aalbers v. Iowa Department of Job Service, 431 N.W.2d 330 (Iowa 1988) and O'Brien v. Employment Appeal Bd., 494 N.W.2d 660 (1993).
The evidence in the record establishes that on July 15 the University of Dubuque responded to Dr. Jeffries reasonable concerns about provisions of his employment contract by significantly changing the conditions of Dr. Jeffries' employment. See 871 IAC 24.26(1). The most significant change in the contract of hire was the withdrawal of Dr. Jeffries' tenure. The evidence clearly indicates that the employer awarded tenure and then refused to honor the award. The employer further changed the conditions of employment through its decision not to continue Dr. Jeffries on tenure-track status, but to reduce Dr. Jeffries to "probationary tenure track" status. The impact of the employer's conduct on Dr. Jeffries, regarding his tenure, was profound and effectively signaled the end of Dr. Jeffries' professional career at the University of Dubuque. Furthermore, the employer's conduct negatively impacted Dr. Jeffries' ability to secure a tenure-track professorship at another education institution. Dr. Jeffries reasonably refused to acquiesce in the changes to his employment.
The employer's conduct created circumstances that a reasonable person would find intolerable and detrimental. See 871 IAC 24.26(4). The employer was well aware of the conditions it had created and further aware that Dr. Jeffries might quit in response to the conditions. The employer created working conditions under which a reasonable person would have quit the employment.
The employer asserts that Dr. Jeffries should be disqualified for benefits based on 871 IAC 24.25(37).
871 IAC 24.25(37) provides:
Voluntary quit without good cause. In general, a voluntary quit means discontinuing the employment because the employee no longer desires to remain in the relationship of an employee with the employer from whom the employee has separated. The employer has the burden of proving that the claimant is disqualified for benefits pursuant to Iowa Code section 96.5. However, the claimant has the initial burden to produce evidence that the claimant is not disqualified for benefits in cases involving Iowa Code section 96.5, subsection (1), paragraphs "a" through "i," and subsection 10. The following reasons for a voluntary quit shall be presumed to be without good cause attributable to the employer:
(37) The claimant will be considered to have left employment voluntarily when such claimant gave the employer notice of an intention to resign and the employer accepted such resignation. This rule shall also apply to the claimant who was employed by an educational institution who has declined or refused to accept a new contract or reasonable assurance of work for a successive academic term or year and the offer of work was within the purview of the individual's training and experience.
The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that the principles of statutory construction apply to interpreting agency rules. Iowa Federation of Labor v. IDJS, 427 N.W.2d 443, 449 (Iowa 1988). In interpreting statutes, the words of the statute should be given their plain and generally accepted meaning. Judges should interpret statutes to avoid interpretations that produce strained, unreasonable or absurd results. Id. All parts of a statute are to be considered together without giving undue importance to a single or isolated part. The ultimate goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the law making body. The language used in the statute and the purpose for which it was enacted must be examined. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Miller, 312 N.W.2d 530, 532 (Iowa 1981).
Applying these principles to the rule in question, the words of the rule are not clear and not unambiguous, and it is necessary to interpret what the rule means. The rule merely creates a rebuttable presumption of a voluntary quit without good cause attributable the employer. The evidence in this matter rebuts that presumption. The rule, in isolation, does not address circumstances involving significant changes in the contract of hire or intolerable and/or detrimental working conditions and must be interpreted in light of the administrative rules and statutes governing those circumstances. To apply the rule mechanically, and in isolation, to the facts of the present matter would be to produce a strained, unreasonable, and absurd result.
Based on the evidence in the record and the application of the appropriate law, the administrative law judge concludes that Dr. Jeffries voluntarily quit the employment with good cause attributable to the employer. Accordingly, Dr. Jeffries is eligible for benefits provided he is otherwise eligible. The employer's account may be charged for benefits paid to Dr. Jeffries.
DECISION:
The Agency representative's September 7, 2005, reference 01, decision is affirmed and modified as follows. The claimant quit the employment with good cause attributable to the employer. The quit was due to significant changes in the contract of hire and intolerable and detrimental working conditions. The claimant is eligible for benefits, provided he is otherwise eligible. The employer's account may be charged.
jt/kjw
I see not much has changed from when UD fired the faculty last time. Don't say we did not warn you.
The short take is that UD will fire you if they do not like you. Whatever you do, don't ask about your pay or work conditions.
Turn a blind eye to drug use.
Plagerize your work.
Illegally download computer programs.
Run a porno webpage from your office.
Have affairs with students.
Be a really stupid seminary student
Cheat in the classroom.
Turn in false expense account reports.
Tell students they can major is programs UD does not have.
But do not ask about your pay or conditions of work.
Calvin
Cool find!
I think the posts are inverted and the second one goes first timewise
Print and Read
Your Seminary Pal
Does anyone know what a propationary tenure track contract is?
Has anyone ever heard of this?
The term "probationary tenure track contract" means that the faculty person spends period of time working towards tenure. It is "probationary" in that the person can be denied tenure if he/she doesn't meet the university's requirements for tenure. A "tenure track" appointment is different from, say, a lecturer or adjunct because the tenure-track faculty member can be awarded tenure after the probationary period. Lecturers and adjuncts are not promised the opportunity to be evaluated for tenure.
So although you may not hear it referred to as such, the term "probationary tenure track appointment" is the formal name for the pre-tenure faculty member who will eventually be evaluated for tenure.
And why should one care about tenure? Because it provides the faculty the freedom and safety to speak the truth and to investigate potentially unpopular or risky topics without fear of losing his/her job. (Correction: In most places that's what it means). That's what "academic freedom" is about. And truth seems to be what the UD administration is most afraid of.
Reading over the posting by Calvin above, it seems that UD was the first party to get a lawyer. Does that seem correct to everyone else? Isn't that not what people were told?
Any truth to the rumor of a student protest at graduation? Count me in
Is this going to be a reel protest or one of these talked about protests that nothing happens?
Is there not a way to bring pressure on the UD Board other than a protest at graduation?
The focus of attention that day should be the graduating seniors and their families, not the Executive Board and their hand-picked tyrant!
Pressure can be brought to bear on the UD board by (a) writing to individual board members and making your concerns known (their names and addresses are listed in the IRS documents in another part of this blog), and (b) contacting presbytery and synod officers and making them aware of the situation.
How much pressure can the synod really put on UD? Do synod or presbytery officers have real control over what happens at the university? do they sit on the board or--better yet--oversee the board? do they substantially fund UD?
As I understand it, the UD is primarily funded by tuition dollars.
My vote.... follow the money trail, and thats who we target with a protest. If the synod really is the place to go, so be it. But if a more public protest is required, then that is the way to go.
Protest by acting like so many others and refuse to give money to UD. That is my plan. As soon as I graduate I am not having anything to to do with Dubuque. Texas, here I come
Has anyone checked the status of UD's current operating budget? Bullock and the Board have attracted the money to build some impressive buildings, but where will the funds to operate and maintain them come from?
Let's not forget that a budget deficit was the excuse used by Bullock to justify gutting the liberal arts and sacking many tenured professors in 1999. It is relevant to ask if the operating budget is now in the black, in view of the millions being spent on building.
UD is now relying heavily on adjuncts to teach important courses such as math, composition, and history. What priorities!!!
The University of Dubuque's Board is meeting today and tomorrow. Oh, to be a fly on the wall. What, if anything, has the (full) Board been told about the Jeffries case?
It is predictible what the Board of Trustees will be told about the Jeffries case: the University lawyer will assure the members of the Board that Jeffries is wrong and the administration is right. End of discussion. The Board seldom engages in serious consideration about any matters. It votes in the way that the person they selected as leader--the president--advises. To do otherwise would be to question their own judgment! And besides, they have businesses to run and being a Board member is just an honorary position. They are wined and dined and cars are rented for their use, among other perks for the position. The real decisions are made by the small, local Board of Directors who make decisions in-between meetings of the Board of Trustees and ignore the will of the Trustees. And they hand-pick their own members so it is one happy family.
Is there a connection between the departure of the University's long-serving V.P. for Finance and the up-coming audit?
It seems that the UD Board was affected by the Jeffries case to the point that candidates for tenure this spring were turned down.
We hear a lot about society's problems, the need for leadership, and the scarcity of inquisitive, articulate leaders. How can an educational institution such as the University of Dubuque, with the current gag order in place, ever produce such people?
I have known Dr.Jeffries for over 20 years and he is one of the few men of integrity that I have had the privilege of befriending. Surely, we can hope justice will be done in this circumstance. In my experience any time "gag orders" are demanded, there is a problem with those in power that needs to be addressed.
Post a Comment
<< Home