Attn: Dr. Gerhardt, Assistant Dean of the Graduate School
Re: Current Grievance of UFF/GAU against University of Florida

Dr. Gerhardt,

Below is a brief summary of the facts and arguments relevant to the current grievance on Articles 15 and 23. This is a document of record from Graduate Assistants United.

Sincerely,

James Thompson
Aline Gubrium

Co-Presidents
Graduate Assistants United
(UFF/NEA)

GRIEVANT
Name: United Faculty of Florida/Graduate Assistants United
University: University of Florida
College: N/A
Dept: N/A
Office Phone: (352) 392-0274

STEP 1 GRIEVANCE REPRESENTATIVE
Name: James Thompson
Mailing Address: 3301 SW 13th St., F165
Gainesville, Florida 32603
Office Phone: (352) 375-2362

GRIEVANCE
Provisions of Agreement allegedly violated:

Sections 15.1, 15.2, 23.2

The language for Article 23 Section 2 reads:
23.2 Stipend Increases. From a total fund of approximately 3% of the stipends of employees, the Board shall provide stipend increases to eligible employees, as defined in section 23.4 below, as follows:

1. General Increase. All eligible employees shall have their stipend rate increased by 3.0%.
2. If the increase described in Section 23.2(a) above for a 9-month, .5 FTE, employee is less than $300.00, the employee shall receive an additional increase which provides the employee a total annual increase of $300.00.
3. If funds are not appropriated sufficiently to fund the increases described in Sections 23.2(a) and 23.2(b), they will be reduced accordingly by the same percentage.
4. Stipend increases shall be computed in proportion to the FTE assigned and the length of the appointment.

Statement of Grievance:
University paychecks to employees dated October 22, 1999 provided raises of less than 3% to many members of the bargaining unit. Thus, the University of Florida failed to implement fully the pay increases detailed under Article 23, Section 2 of BOR-GAU Collective Bargaining Agreement for 1999-2001. This omission further violates UFF's rights under the contract by reducing the amount of pay from which UFF may collect membership dues under the "Union Deductions" provisions in Article 15, Sections 1 and 2.

Remedy Sought:
The University of Florida shall fully implement the contractual increase stipulated in Article 23, Section 2(a) and the minimum increase stipulated in Article 23, Section 2(b) retroactive to October 1, 1999.

Argument
(All references to appropriations are taken from: www.leg.state.fl.us/session/1999/senate/bills/appbills/pdf/31test.pdf
This site refers to appropriations numbered 180, 181, 182, 183, and 189.)

(It should be noted that, until receipt of the pay and raise report for Graduate Assistants at UF, GAU cannot calculate precise figures for certain arguments. This does not detract from our general understanding of implementation, accounting, and funding mechanisms related to the grievance.)

(1)
The Legislature of the State of Florida last session appropriated funds for "an overall average 2.8% increase on the September 30, 1999 base rate of pay of graduate assistants (UF, USF, and FAMU), graduate health professions assistants, effective October 1, 1999." Of the total number of graduate assistants from which this fund was derived, only a portion are eligible for the stipend increase per guidelines in Section 23.4. This section makes eligible for the increase "those who were employed at least one (1) semester during the 1998-99 academic year for at least .25 FTE, and are employed at least one semester for at least .25 FTE in the 1999-2000 academic year." The cost of funding the contracted 3.0% raise for these eligible employees is only a portion of the appropriated fund. The remainder should be used to fulfill the University's contractual obligation to eligible employees.

(1)(a)
The contract itself creates a "fund" like the one above: "a total fund of approximately 3% of the stipends of employees." As in GAU Argument (1), this fund exceeds the amount necessary to fund eligible employees.

(2)
The State University System receives funds on a statewide basis for Graduate Assistant pay. This large appropriation should first be used to fulfill its contractual obligations with graduate assistants at UF, USF, and FAMU.

(2)(a)
There are no limitations, in the form of prohibitive language, placed on how these funds may be distributed within the SUS. In fact, the legislature specifically states that appropriations "shall be distributed in accordance with the negotiated assistants [sic] collective bargaining agreements of the unit graduate assistants and as prescribed by the Board of Regents for the non-unit graduate assistants." This means that the contract shall be the guide for unit schools (UF, USF, FAMU), and management has flexibility for non-unit schools.

(3)
Aside from the specific appropriations mentioned above, the legislature nowhere prohibits the University or the BOR from using discretionary funds, general funds, or other non-appropriated and appropriated monies to fulfill the obligations of the contract. From the total operating budget of the University of Florida, the amount of the pay raise not implemented is but a small fraction.

(4)
The University has established its budgetary flexibility through multiple accounting practices. Although examples are too numerous to list here, one is particularly appropriate. Earlier this semester, Provost Betty Capaldi authorized the use of monies from "Other Personnel Service" accounts (a fund from which Graduate Assistant pay is dispensed) for the payment of faculty merit raises. See memo from the Office of the Provost dated March 25, 1999.

(5)
Article 23.2(c) states that "if funds are not appropriated sufficiently to fund the increased [sic] described in Sections 23.2(a) and 23.2(b), they will be reduced accordingly by the same percentage." The word "funds" does not refer to the legislative appropriation, but may refer to that general portion of the operating budget which derives from "appropriations." Where the contract refers to a specific fund or appropriation, it does so explicitly. Note, for example, the language in 23.1: "sufficient stipend increase funds."

(6)
The fulfillment of a contract is not an option. Its negotiation of a yearly contract under federal provisions governing labor and management rights implies that the Board of Regents acts as the agent for its superior entity, the legislature of the State of Florida. The Severability clause in Article 20 is designed to prevent any dissonance between the actions of the higher entity and its subordinate. Unless specific prohibitive language prohibits a particular action, the University may not make claims that the State of Florida has restricted its flexibility, fiscal maneuverability, or accounting practices with regard to the payment of negotiated raises. As Chancellor Adam Herbert stated earlier this year with regard to ad hoc administrative raises, the university must meet contractual obligations to those who get raises (Alligator, Thursday, Aug. 26, 1999). The same logic applies to graduate assistants.