Employee Grievance

This policy was posted for public comment from April 9 – May 11, 2026

Comments have been condensed and reformatted.

Responses

General Comments

The committee described this policy as disingenuous, commenting on how the entire process seems as though it is heavily weighted against an employee who has no idea what they are doing, and no support.

Thank you for your comment. Employees may engage the assistance of an advisor or attorney throughout the process.

Please consider whether the grievance process needs an employee-support mechanism, such as an ombuds, advocate, or designated PWC resource, to help employees understand the process before they begin a formal grievance. Without some process guidance, employees may lose not because the employment action was justified, but because they did not understand how to preserve deadlines, gather evidence, or present the relevant issues.

Thank you for the comment. The grievant is provided with the opportunity to engage an advisor or attorney to assist them throughout the process.

Concern about alignment with the recordings provisions in the Employee Conduct Policy. In the Employee Conduct policy, 4.B.22.e.(2)(a) states that supervisors and employees may record formal grievance hearings that they participate in (with permission). However, the Employee Grievance policy, doesn't mention that the hearings are, or can be, recorded, but implies in 4.D.11.c.(2) that the College is recording the hearings as the recording can be made available to the final and binding decision maker.

Thank you for your comment. The general information section has been updated to reflect all grievance hearings are recorded.

3. Definitions

3.G – Standing Grievance Committee makes it sound as if it is stagnant, like there are very few people on it, and they are cycled through the rotation indefinitely. Consider changing the name to "Grievance Hearing Committee Pool" and maintaining consistency with the term.

Thank you for your comment. This suggestion has been incorporated throughout the policy document, noting that the hearing committee is comprised of individuals from the grievance hearing committee pool, and the committee's makeup is determined based on the type of grievant.

4. Procedures

4.A.4 – add a comma after "regular staff" for clarity and grammatical consistency.

Thank you for this recommendation. This has been changed in the policy document to regular employees in alignment with the personnel definitions.

4.A.4 – The Corrective Action policy says in 4.F.3.d that "employees who receive level three corrective action may exercise the formal grievance procedures." This policy does not place any restrictions on what type of employee has grievance rights. Suggestion to consider clarifying which employees are eligible to use the formal grievance procedure. It is unclear whether administrators, including at-will administrators, may access the formal grievance process and under what circumstances.

Thank you for your comment. Clarification has been made in the policy to ensure clarity and consistency. The procedure was updated to note that administrative at-will employees may not grieve termination, but may grieve demotion, a reduction in pay, and a suspension without pay.

4.A.5 – What about SLTech faculty? As non-tenure track faculty this limits them to informal procedure only. Although they are full faculty and tend to be as "permanent" as their tenure track counterparts. SLTech faculty at Provisional or Continuous status should have the same rights as their tenure track counterparts.

Thank you for your comment. The grievance process is open to all regular employees, including SLTC faculty.

4.A.6 – Is the "employee's advisor" reference in 4.A.6 available only to the grievant or to both grievant and respondent?

This is available solely to the grievant, as the respondent will always be the College.

4.A.9 – similar issue to 4.A.5. We need to address SLTech faculty, who also (generally speaking) follow the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure policy, but rather than being tenure track are provisional/continuous status.

Thank you for your comment. The grievance process is open to all regular employees, including SLTC faculty.

4.A.12 – This subsection states that "PWC shall maintain all records, findings, and decisions separately from the employee's personnel file." This isn't aligned with records management. The college's Personnel file record series is based on the general retention schedule, GRS-1965. GRS-1965 explicitly states that final actions taken as a result of disciplinary action are included in that schedule. Most of the records could be kept separately under the record series Employee misconduct investigation case files, but the final action records should be kept in the personnel file.

This has been updated to state, "PWC shall maintain all records, findings, and decisions." The President's final and binding decisions should be kept in the personnel file.

4.A.12 – Related to the comment above, someone asked, "If the employee's grievance was upheld and the findings stated that the supervisor had violated policy would there be a reason to have that outcome submitted to the employee's personnel file?"

No, a finding that a supervisor "violated policy" is outside the scope of the grievance committee and procedure. Any subsequent corrective action to the supervisor would be separately documented in the supervisor's personnel file.

4.A.14 – This subsection is confusing. As written, it reads that the informal procedure is described in the corrective action policy. It isn't described in that policy.

Thank you for your comment. Links and definitions have been added to the Corrective Action Policy.

4.A.14 – In this section only level three corrective actions are eligible for the formal grievance procedure. Please clarify why lower-level corrective actions (Levels One and Two) are excluded from grievance eligibility.

Thank you for the comment. Formal grievance only applies to level three since formal grievances are limited to demotion, reduction in pay, suspension without pay, or termination of employment.

4.B.1 – Who determines if an employee made a good faith effort to resolve the problem in 4.B.1? What would be considered acceptable evidence of effort?

Thank you for comment. The AVP for PWC would make the determination. An example of a good faith effort would be evidence of a request for a meeting, or notes from a meeting, or conversations attempting to discuss and resolve the issue.

4.B.3-4 – Please clarify why deadlines are expressed in calendar days rather than business days, and how deadlines apply when the college is closed. Using calendar days may inadvertently shorten the effective time available to an employee when the college is closed for weekends, holidays, weather closures, or other institutional shutdowns. During such closures, employees may be unable to access supervisors, initiate discussions, or complete required steps despite acting in good faith.

Thank you for your comment. Please see Personnel Definitions which address college closures and holidays.

4.B.3 – Consider allowing the employee 14 calendar days to initiate the informal procedure, rather than requiring the informal procedure to be completed within that timeframe. While the policy places the responsibility for initiating the informal process on the employee, the completion of the process often depends on supervisor availability and institutional response timelines, which are outside the employee's control.

Thank you for this recommendation. The policy has been updated to 21 calendar days to provide additional time for initiation and completion of the informal process.

4.B.3 – How is date of concern determined? Additionally, I believe there is a definition for calendar days in the personnel definitions. It would be helpful to include the definition in the policy rather than link to a long list of general terms.

Please see the definition of Date of Concern in section 3 of the policy. Date of concern is determined as the date of the event leading to an employee's decision to initiate the grievance process.

4.B.4 – Please clarify whether failure to complete the informal procedure within 14 calendar days, through no fault of the employee, precludes the employee from advancing to the formal grievance procedure.

Thank you for the comment. There is no automatic waiver of formal grievance rights if the employee can document good faith efforts to engage in the informal procedure. PWC may be engaged by either party during the informal procedure.

4.B.5.c – This section lists "wages and salaries" as issues limited to the informal procedure. Consider clarifying the scope of that exclusion to distinguish between requests for increased compensation and actions that reduce existing pay.

Thank you for your comment. Section 4.B.5.c. has been updated to reflect the exclusion of demotion with reduction in pay or suspension without pay.

4.C.1 – In this section, the deadline is again expressed in calendar days. Consider whether business days would be more appropriate, or whether the policy should address how deadlines are calculated when the college is closed.

Thank you for your comment. Please see Personnel Definitions, which addresses college closures and holidays.

4.C.1-3 – It is unclear when the 7 calendar day deadline begins. 4.C.1 gives the grievant an additional 7 calendar days to request formal conflict resolution, but it is unclear whether that period begins when the informal procedure ends, when the supervisor communicates that the issue will not be resolved, or after the full 14-day informal period expires. Consider tying each deadline to a clearly identifiable event, such as a written notice explaining the next available step, the applicable deadline, and where the employee may obtain the formal conflict resolution or grievance hearing request form.

Thank you for your comment. The additional seven days is on top of the 21 days from the date of concern.

4.D.6 – The table seems confusing to multiple commenters. The table states that staff can be both grievant and respondent, but it isn't clear that the "staff respondent" is most likely the grievant's supervisor. In what case would an administrator be the grievant and a faculty or staff member be the respondent?

Thank you for the comment. The table language has been clarified. An administrator may be a grievant for a demotion or reduction in pay, but not for a termination.

4.D.11.b.(1) – In grievance hearings that do not involve a termination, does the respondent get to choose their advisor as specified in 4.D.11.b.1? Or does the College select this person on their behalf (such as the College's AAG)? If the College will always be represented by its legal counsel in the grievance hearings, perhaps this section should be changed to reflect that.

Thank you for your comment. We have updated the Policy to clarify this section.

4.D.11.b.(1) – Please consider allowing the committee chair discretion to permit a non-attorney advisor to address the committee when appropriate. The current language allows each party to bring one person to assist them during the hearing, but states that the person may only advise and may not address the committee unless they are an attorney. This may leave an unrepresented employee at a significant disadvantage in a process that requires the employee to understand the policy, identify relevant evidence, present witnesses, respond to the other party's presentation, and following hearing procedures. Allowing non-attorney advisors to participate when doing so would help the committee understand the employee's position or help the employee meaningfully participate in the hearing would be more equitable.

Thank you for the comment. This section has been revised to include: "The hearing committee chairperson will have the discretion to allow any advisors who are not attorneys to address the committee."

4.D.11.b.(5)-(6) – Consider whether the committee may consider written statements in addition to, or in lieu of, live witness testimony. Although the draft already prohibits retaliation against witnesses, allowing written statements or remote participation may make the hearing process more accessible and less burdensome for employees and witnesses.

Thank you for your comment. We have updated the policy to allow for virtual participation.

4.D.11.b.(7) – Consider clarifying how the committee could handle evidence about supervisor conduct. The draft states that character testimony will not be allowed, but employees may attempt to explain the grievance by describing a supervisor's conduct, bias, motive, or pattern of treatment.

Thank you for your comment. The Hearing Officer determines relevance related to the evidence presented.

Comments

Is the "employee's advisor" reference in 4.A.6 available only to the grievant or to both grievant and respondent? In 4.A.12, it states that "PWC shall maintain all records, findings, and decisions separately from the employee's personnel file." This isn't aligned with records management. The college's Personnel file record series is based on the general retention schedule, GRS-1965. GRS-1965 explicitly states that final actions taken as a result of disciplinary action are included in that schedule. Most of the records could be kept separately under the record series Employee misconduct investigation case files, but the final action records should be kept in the personnel file. 4.A.14 is worded in a confusing manner. As written, it reads that the informal procedure is described in the corrective action policy. It isn't described in that policy. The informal procedure is outlined in point B of the Employee Grievance policy. Who determines if an employee made a good faith effort to resolve the problem in 4.B.1? What would be considered acceptable evidence of effort? How is date of concern determined in 4.B.3? Additionally, I believe there is a definition for calendar days in the personnel definitions. It would be helpful to include the definition in the policy rather than link to a long list of general terms. Could there be clarification added that grievance hearings are between employees and their supervisors or administrators? The table in 4.D.6 is confusing because it states that staff can be both grievant and respondent, but it isn't clear that the "staff respondent" is most likely the grievant's supervisor. In grievance hearings that do not involve a termination, does the respondent get to choose their advisor as specified in 4.D.11.b.1? Or does the College select this person on their behalf (such as the College's AAG)? If the College will always be represented by it's legal counsel in the grievance hearings, perhaps this section should be changed to reflect that. In the four policies presented, there seem to be some points that are implied, but not explicitly stated, or that don't completely align with the other policies. • The Employee Conduct policy says in 4.B.22.e.2.a that supervisors and employees may record formal grievance hearings that they participate in (with permission). However, the Employee Grievance policy, doesn't mention that the hearings are, or can be, recorded, but implies in 4.D.11.c.2 that the College is recording the hearings as the recording can be made available to the final and binding decision maker. There is no mention of participant consent (like the Employee Conduct policy) nor that the grievant or supervisor can make their own recording. • The Corrective Action policy says in 4.F.3.d that "employees who receive level three corrective action may exercise the formal grievance procedures." This policy does not place any restrictions on what type of employee has grievance rights. The Employee Grievance policy says in 4.A.4 that only full time, regular staff and faculty who are not at-will employees have access to the grievance procedure. 4.A.5 listed who does not have grievance rights. Administrators' rights are not mentioned in either section. According to the table in 4.D.6, administrators have grievance rights. However, in the Corrective Action policy, it defines administrative at-will employees as all employees at the director level or above (including associate deans), which seems to put Employee Grievance sections 4.A.4 and 4.D.6 in contradiction with each other. If there are administrators who would not be considered "at-will" that should be clarified in the policy/policies.
4.a.5: What about SLTech faculty? As non-tenure track faculty this limites them to informal procedure only. Although they are full faculty and tend to be as "permanent" as their tenure track counterparts. SLTech faculty at Provisional or Continuous status should have the same rights as their tenure track counterparts. 9. Similar issue here, we need to address SLTech faculty, who also (generally speaking) follow the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure policy but rather than being tenure track are provisional/continuous status. This should also be addressed here.
In response to [a previous comment] regarding 4.A.12. If they employee's grievance was upheld and the findings stated that the supervisor had violated policy would there be a reason to have that outcome submitted to the employee's personnel file? 4.B.6 The table seems confusing to me. Wouldn't the employee filing the grievance be the grievant? And the supervisor who took the action be the respondent? In what case would an administrator be the grievant and a faculty or staff be the respondent.
General Comments: The committee described this policy as disingenuous, commenting on how the entire process seems as though it is heavily weighted against an employee who has no idea what they are doing, and no support. Please consider whether the grievance process needs an employee-support mechanism, such as an ombuds, advocate, or designated PWC resource, to help employees understand the process before they begin a formal grievance. The formal grievance hearing process functions like a mini-adjudicative proceeding, with short deadlines, evidentiary expectations, witness presentation, and attorney involvement. Without some process guidance, employees may lose not because the employment action was justified, but because they did not understand how to preserve deadlines, gather evidence, or present the relevant issues.
1. Policy n/a
2. References n/a
3. Definitions 3.G. Standing Grievance Committee makes it sound as if it is stagnant, like there are very few people on it, and they are cycled through the rotation indefinitely. There are also inconsistencies regarding the name of this group throughout the policy. Consider changing the name to "Grievance Hearing Committee Pool" and maintaining consistency with the term.
4. Procedures 4.A.4. add a comma after "regular staff" for clarity and grammatical consistency. 4.A.4. Consider clarifying which employees are eligible to use the formal grievance procedure. Section 4.A.4 states that full-time regular staff and faculty employees who are not at-will employees and have completed their probationary period have access to the grievance procedure, while 4.A.5 limits probationary employees, certain faculty appointments, and part-time employees to the informal procedure. However, the grievance hearing committee chart in 4.D.6 includes "Administrator Grievant/Respondent" categories. It is unclear whether administrators, including at-will administrators, may access the formal grievance process and under what circumstances. Also, which administrators are at-will and which administrators are not at-will? 4.A.5. Consider removing the term "non tenure track." Recent Utah legislation and related Utah System of Higher Education policy revisions emphasize appointment status and probationary period, rather than "track" based faculty classifications. Retaining this term may create inconsistency with current statutory tenure and post tenure review frameworks and emerging institutional practice. 4.A.14. In this section only Level Three corrective actions are eligible for the formal grievance procedure. Please clarify why lower level corrective actions (Levels One and Two) are excluded from grievance eligibility. The restriction suggests an intentional policy distinction but does not explain the underlying rationale. Because corrective actions may have cumulative or career impacting consequences, it may be helpful to document why only the highest level of corrective action warrants access to the formal grievance process, while lower levels are limited to informal resolution. 4.B.3. Consider allowing the employee 14 calendar days to initiate the informal procedure, rather than requiring the informal procedure to be completed within that timeframe. While the policy places the responsibility for initiating the informal process on the employee, completion of the process often depends on supervisor availability and institutional response timelines that are outside the employee's control. Requiring completion within 14 calendar days may unfairly penalize employees for delays attributable to the college rather than the grievant. 4.B.4. Please clarify whether failure to complete the informal procedure within 14 calendar days, through no fault of the employee, precludes the employee from advancing to the formal grievance procedure. As written, the provision could be interpreted to mean that delays outside the employee's control (e.g., supervisor unavailability or lack of response) result in an automatic waiver of formal grievance rights. If this is not the intent, additional clarification may be warranted to distinguish between employee inaction and institution related delays. 4.B.3-4. Please clarify why deadlines are expressed in calendar days rather than business days, and how deadlines apply when the college is closed. Using calendar days may inadvertently shorten the effective time available to an employee when the college is closed for weekends, holidays, weather closures, or other institutional shutdowns. During such closures, employees may be unable to access supervisors, initiate discussions, or complete required steps despite acting in good faith. 4.B.5.c. This section lists "wages and salaries" as issues limited to the informal procedure, consider clarifying the scope of that exclusion. As written, it is unclear whether this limitation applies equally to: - routine or across the board salary increases, - salary decreases or reductions, - denial of an expected or advertised increase, or - loss of a wage or compensation opportunity (e.g., merit pay, differential, or stipend). The committee feels as though this section can be interpreted to include a decrease in wages or salary, including a demotion with reduced pay. Because the draft separately provides formal grievance rights for demotion with reduction in pay, consider revising 4.B.5.c to distinguish between requests for increased compensation and actions that reduce existing pay. 4.C.1-3. It is unclear when the seven calendar day deadline begins. 4.C.1 gives the grievant an additional 7 calendar days to request formal conflict resolution, but it is unclear whether that period begins when the informal procedure ends, when the supervisor communicates that issue will not be resolved, or after the full 14-day informal period expires. 4.C.2 and 4.C.3 also impose a seven calendar day deadline after formal conflict resolution is declined or ends. Consider tying each deadline to a clearly identifiable event, such as written notice explaining the next available step, the applicable deadline, and where the employee may obtain the formal conflict resolution or grievance hearing request form. 4.C.1-3. Additionally, consider adding a notice requirement when the informal procedure ends without resolution. The policy places significant responsibility on the employee to know the next procedural step and meet short deadlines, even though an employee may not know where to go or what form to submit after the supervisor denies the informal request. Consider requiring that the supervisor or PWC provide written notice explaining the next available step, the applicable deadline, and where the employee may obtain the formal conflict resolution or grievance hearing request form. 4.C.1. In this section, the deadline is again expressed in calendar days. Consider whether business days would be more appropriate, or whether the policy should address how deadlines are calculated when the college is closed. Calendar day deadlines may substantially reduce the time available to an employee during weekends, holidays, or institutional closures, particularly given that participation in formal conflict resolution often depends on the availability of supervisors, PWC staff, or other college representatives. Without clarification, employees may be disadvantaged by circumstances outside their control. 4.D.6. As previously mentioned, consider clarifying whether the "Administrator Grievant/Respondent" categories are intended to apply to all administrators or only to administrators who are otherwise eligible for the informal grievance procedure. The eligibility language in 4.A.4 excludes at-will employees, while the chart contemplates grievances involving administrators. 4.D.11.b.1. Please consider allowing the committee chair discretion to permit a non-attorney advisor to address the committee when appropriate. The current language allows each party to bring one person to assist them during the hearing, but states that the person may only advise and may not address the committee unless they are an attorney. This may leave an unrepresented employee at a significant disadvantage in a process that requires the employee to understand the policy, identify relevant evidence, present witnesses, respond to the other party's presentation, and following hearing procedures. Allowing non-attorney advisors to participate when doing so would help the committee understand the employee's position or help the employee meaningfully participate in the hearing would be more equitable. 4.D.11.b.5-6. Consider whether the committee may consider written statements in addition to, or in lieu of, live witness testimony. Some witnesses may be reluctant or unable to appear in person, particularly if they work under the same supervisor or if hearings occur during regular business hours. Although the draft already prohibits retaliation against witnesses, allowing written statements or remote participation may make the hearing process more accessible and less burdensome for employees and witnesses. 4.D.11.b.7. Consider clarifying how the committee could handle evidence about supervisor conduct. The draft states that character testimony will not be allowed, but employees may attempt to explain the grievance by describing a supervisor's conduct, bias, motive, or pattern of treatment. Consider clarifying the distinction between impermissible character testimony and potentially relevant evidence about supervisor conduct, retaliation, bias, inconsistent treatment, or other facts that may bear on whether the corrective action or employment decision was proper.