The elected Chief Grievance Officer/Contract Administrator will be the primary intake point for all complaints of possible contract violations. Other officers shall refer complainants to the Chief Grievance Officer.
 

          Interviewing the Complainant
          The Chief Grievance Officer will interview the complainant in order to determine whether or not a potential grievance exists. In this initial interview the facts as presented by the grievant should be taken at face value. The question to be resolved at this point is if the facts are as presented by the complainant, would there be a violation of the Agreement. The Chief Grievance Officer may need to consult with legal counsel in making this determination. If in the judgment of the Chief Grievance Officer there is no contract violation, given the facts as presented he/she should inform the complainant of this a quickly as possible. If the Chief Grievance Officer believes that if the facts as stated are true there would be a violation he/she will initiate an investigation. If the complainant does not agree with the chief Grievance Officers judgement both the complainant and the Chief Grievance officer will be given the opportunity to present his/her views to the Executive Committee (either in writing and/or in person as he/she chooses). The Executive Committee will then make a final decision as to whether or not to proceed further with the complaint.
 

          Investigation
          Except in cases where delaying would lead to the loss of protection or the possibility of realistic remedy, the Chief Grievance Officer will initiate an investigation prior to filing a formal grievance. Such an investigation may involve asking the complainant for supporting documentation, interviewing witnesses, the taking of written statements, requesting information from the University, reviewing personnel files, etc. After collecting the available data the Chief Grievance Officer will file a grievance if he/she believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the grievance or if he/she finds it necessary to file a grievance in order to gain access to necessary information. At this stage the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the grievant. If the Chief Grievance Officer believes that there is insufficient evidence to file a grievance he/she will so inform the complainant. If the complainant disagrees with the Chief Grievance Officer’s judgement both the complainant and the Chief Grievance Office will be given the opportunity to present his/her views to the Executive Committee (either in person and/or in writing as he/she chooses). The Executive Committee will then make a final decision as to whether or not to file a formal grievance.
 

          Filing the Grievance
          The Chief Grievance Officer, having determined that it is likely a violation of the Agreement has occurred, is authorized to file a grievance. The Chief Grievance Officer will inform the President (or Vice President in the President's absence) of the filing of new grievances. The Chief Grievance Officer will also explain to the grievant that all grievances under our Agreement belong to the AAUP and all decisions on how to proceed and when to settle will ultimately rest with the AAUP Executive Committee. The Chief Grievance Officer will report on the progress of all on-going investigations, complaints and grievances to the Executive Committee at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting. He/she will also keep the grievant informed on the progress of the grievance.
 

          Grievance Hearing and Offers of Settlement
          The Chief Grievance Officer working with the grievant and legal counsel will prepare and present the case at any internal grievance hearing. During this period the Chief Grievance Officer in consultation with the grievant may make offers of settlement to the University or consider such offers from the University. If the Chief Grievance Officer believes a reasonable offer of settlement is on the table, he/she will recommend its acceptance to the Executive Committee. If the grievant does not agree with the Chief Grievance Officer's recommendation both the Chief Grievance Officer and the grievant will be given the opportunity to present his/her views to the Executive Committee (either in person and/or writing as he/she chooses)). The Executive Committee will then make the final decision as to whether or not to accept the offer of settlement.
 

          Arbitration
          If no settlement can be reached through the internal process the Chief Grievance Officer will make a recommendation to the Executive Committee on whether or not to proceed to arbitration. In making this recommendation the Chief Grievance Officer will consult with the grievant and outside counsel. The Chief Grievance Officer should weigh the seriousness of the violation; the type of remedy likely to be awarded by an arbitrator if the grievance is successful; the type of precedence that will be set if the arbitration is lost; and the cost of the arbitration in making his/her recommendation. If the grievant does not agree with the Chief Grievance Officer's recommendation both the Chief Grievance Officer and the grievant will be given the oppurtunity to present his/her views to the Executive Committee (either in person and/or in writing as he/she chooses). The Executive Committee will then make the final decision as to whether or not to proceed to arbitration.

          If the Executive Committee votes to proceed to Arbitration the Chief Grievance Officer working with counsel will prepare the case to be presented. Depending on the complexity of the case, and the gravity of the issues at stake the Chief Grievance Officer may rely more or less heavily on counsel. If the Chief Grievance Officer feels that the interest of the AAUP is best served by having counsel prepare and present the case, he/she will so inform the Executive Committee during its deliberation on whether or not to arbitrate. The Executive Committee must approve any offer of settlement prior to the arbitrator’s award. If the grievant disagrees with the Chief Grievance Officers recommendation as to whether or not to accept an offer of settlement prior to an arbitrator’s award both the Chief Grievance Officer and the grievant will be given the opportunity to present his/her views to the Executive Committee (either in person and/or in writing as he/she chooses). The Executive Committee will then make the final decision as to whether or not to accept an offer of settlement.

          I. Expedited Arbitration
          In cases where the Chief Grievance Officer believes that delaying will lead to irreparable harm to the interests of a member, he/she is authorized to file under the Expedited Arbitration clause of the Agreement. This clause moves the grievance directly to arbitration and halts any action by the University for forty-five (45) days. The Chief Grievance Officer will immediately notify the President (or Vice President in the President's absence) of his/her decision and will inform the Executive Committee at the earliest possible date. Prior to the arbitration hearing the Chief Grievance Officer will carry out an investigation and will make a recommendation to the Executive Committee on whether or not to withdraw the grievance. In making this recommendation he/she will weigh the same issues that he/she would weigh in making a recommendation to move to arbitration after an internal hearing. The Chief Grievance Officer will also attempt to reach settlement with the University prior to arbitration, as he/she would do in any arbitration case. If the grievant disagrees with the Chief Grievance officers recommendation both the Chief Grievance Officer and the grievant will be given the opportunity to present his her views to the Executive Committee (either in person and/or in writing as he/she chooses). The Executive Committee will then make the final decisions to whether or not to proceed to arbitration or to accept an offer of settlement.
 

          II. Conflicts of Interest
          In cases where the Chief Grievance Officer believes that he/she has compelling professional or personal obligations or financial interests that would make it difficult for him/her to meet the duty of fair representation to a complainant/grievant or to the bargaining unit as a whole, he/she will immediately inform the President (or the Vice-President in the President’s absence). The President (or Vice-President) will as quickly as possible and without any involvement by the Chief Grievance Officer arrange for fair and adequate alternate representation for the complainant/greivant. However until such alternate representation can be arranged the Chief Grievance Officer shall continue to provide the contractually necessary representation. Such alternate representative will act in all ways as the Chief Grievance Officer would have acted if he/she was handling the case including having full access to the chapters legal counsel for help and support in pursuing the case. If such alternate representation can not be quickly supplied from within the unit, the Rider University Chapter AAUP legal counsel will be assigned to handle the case. Once such alternate representation is provided the Chief Grievance Officer will recuse him/herself from the case, and will neither provide advise or counsel to the new representative or vote as a member of the Executive Committee on the case. Whether a case is handled by alternate representation from within the unit or by legal counsel the rights of the grievant to appeal to the Executive Committee shall be the same as when a case is handled by the Chief Grievance Officer.

          If a complainant/grievant or any member of the Executive Committee believes that the Chief Grievance Officer cannot meet his/her duty of fair representation he/she will so inform the Chief Grievance Officer and ask him/her to recuse him/herself from the case. If the Chief Grievance Officer does not agree he/she will immediately inform the President (or the Vice-President in the President’s absence). The President (or Vice-President) will convene, within five days, an emergency meeting of the Executive Committee to determine whether or not to remove the Chief Grievance Officer from the handling of this particular complainant/grievance. At this hearing the individual raising the objection to the Chief Grievance Officer, the Chief Grievance Officer and the complainant/grievant (if he/she is not the individual raising the objection) shall be given the opportunity to present his/her views to the Executive Committee (either in person and or in writing as he/she chooses). The Executive Committee shall be free to consult with legal counsel on the issues raised by the objection but shall then make the final decision as to whether or not the complaint/grievance shall be handled by someone other then the Chief Grievance Officer. If the Executive Committee removes the Chief Grievance Officer from the handling of this particular complaint/grievance the selection of an alternate shall be as in the paragraph above.

          Under no circumstances will a complainant/grievant be left without fair and adequate representation and the Chief Grievance Officer will not withdraw from a case until such representation is arranged.

          (Once a constitutional amendment is passed providing for an assistant grievance officer some elements of these procedures will need to be modified in order to take into account the role of that position.)