Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Again: If there is to be due process, there needs to be a neutral "decider"
So what is the process that UC has selected as the result of court decisions that point to a lack of due process? The revised Appendix E of UC procedures - discussed in the Bruin article - describes the selection of the "hearing officer."*** The relevant language is reproduced below:
The bottom line here is that regardless of the recent bells and whistles that were added to Title IX procedures in response to court decisions, UC procedures regarding selection of the "decider" do not mirror those which courts are known to accept in the union-management realm as due process. At least on paper, the hearing officer does not appear to be a disinterested neutral. A university employee can be selected by the hearing coordinator as the hearing officer. There is the old quote from Upton Sinclair:
Even if an outsider is selected, the fact that UC will "train" that individual and pays the fee, leaves a lot to be desired. Of course, we will see how the new process goes in practice and what courts do with challenges to it. But if UC - regardless of what courts may say - wants true due process, it needs to face the issue of true neutrality.
***https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2710641/PACAOS-Appendix-E. PowerPoint slides summarizing the process are at:
Full disclosure: Yours truly taught a course in labor relations at UCLA which included the process of grievance arbitration. For those not familiar with the process, below are videos from an arbitration hearing in the early 1970s regarding a Greyhound (bus) employee that was held at UCLA for the benefit of students by (now deceased) Paul Prasow, then a lecturer at UCLA and a professional arbitrator (and co-author of a book on the arbitration process).
or direct to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaLoZOKf4I
or direct to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taFdMNpAYmQ