Subject: Re: Grievance filed by Richard Mann against the Administration of the University of Waterloo as a result of its Mandatory Vaccination and Testing Policy From: Richard Mann Date: 11/17/21, 7:59 PM To: CC: Lori Curtis , Roydon Fraser , , Jean-Paul Lam , Erin Windibank To: James Rush, Vice President Academic and Provost, University of Waterloo Cc: Lori Curtis, President, FAUW Erin Windibank, Executive Manager, FAUW Roydon Fraser, Jasmin Habib and Jean-Paul Lam, Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee, FAUW From: Richard Mann, Cheriton School of Computer Science, UW Re: Grievance filed by Richard Mann against the Administration of the University of Waterloo as a result of its Mandatory Vaccination and Testing Policy Date: November 17, 2021 I am filing this grievance against the University of Waterloo Administration. It concerns the following suspensions imposed on me by the UW Administration according to the “Employee Discipline Process” – to be referred to as “EDP” – described in the October 8, 2021 memo entitled “Consequences for non-compliance with vaccine mandate” (copy attached): On October 18, 2021, a three-day paid suspension was imposed on me. On October 21, 2021, a 42-day unpaid suspension was imposed on me. It will end on November 30, 2021. The primary basis of my grievance is process: As will be discussed in more detail below, the actual process described in the EDP was not followed prior to either of my suspensions. More specifically, no effort was made by the administration to determine whether my scholarly activities for the Fall 2021 term could be accommodated due to my absence from campus. As such, the suspensions should be deemed invalid. Because of my noncompliance with UW’s vaccine mandate, I should expect, according to Point No. 4 of the EDP, to receive a letter around November 20, 2021 “indicating that their pay and benefits will cases as at the end of the suspension.” I claim that this sudden termination of pay and benefits violates the Memorandum of Agreement between UW and the Faculty Association of UW (FAUW). Let me now discuss 1. above in detail: According to Point No. 1 of the EDP, “Supervisors will evaluate non-compliant individual circumstances in light of academic and operational circumstances and in consultation with the individual and develop a plan for alternative work options, if they are available. Employees who are not in compliance must complete an educational module in LEARN on vaccines.” According to Point No. 2 of the EDP, “Employees determined to be non-compliant and for whom no alternative work options are available will be placed on a three-day paid suspension. The mandatory educational module must be completed before the end of the three-day suspension.” It is true that I did not complete the educational module in LEARN. However, no consultation between myself and Mark Giesbrecht, the Dean of Mathematics, ever took place to “develop a plan for alternative work options, if they are available”. Had such a consultation taken place, it would have been determined that no “alternative work options” would be necessary. During the Fall 2021 term, I had no teaching duties and could therefore pursue my research at home, i.e., away from campus. As such, the 3-day suspension should be deemed invalid. According to Point No. 3 of the EDP, “Individuals who remain non-compliant and for whom no alternative work options are available will subject to a 42-day unpaid suspension with benefits. Once again, no consultation took place. Had such a consultation taken place, it would have once again been determined that no “alternative work options” would be necessary for reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. As such, the 42-day suspension should be deemed invalid. Let me now discuss 2. above in detail: According to Point No. 4 of the EDP, “If the individual remains non-compliant 14 days before the end of the 42-day suspension, they will receive a letter indicating that their pay and benefits will cease at the end of the suspension.” All disciplinary actions by the UW administration should be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between UW and the Faculty Association of UW – see, in particular, Article 8, Discipline – copy attached. If the action described in Point No. 4 of the EDP is interpreted as a “dismissal”, then there is a conflict with the MOA. According to Section 8.4(c), “For Members with tenure or continuing lecturer appointments, dismissal means termination of appointment without the Member’s consent.” Sections 8.6-8.18 then describe the “disciplinary process.” Here we examine only a couple of points in these sections: According to Section 8.11, “The Dean shall convene a meeting within twenty-five working days of the date of notice to afford the Member an opportunity to make oral and/or written submissions before any disciplinary measures are imposed. The Member shall be given at least seven working days notice of the time and place of the meeting.” Clearly, the EDP makes no provision for such a meeting. According to Section 8.15, where the disciplinary action is dismissal for cause, suspension with reduced pay or a fine in lieu thereof, the Member shall retain full salary and benefits ... until the time limit for filing a grievance under Article 9 has expired. If the disciplinary action is grieved, the Member shall retain full salary and benefits for a period of one year from the date of the disciplinary decision in 8.12, or until the grievance and arbitration procedures set out in Article 9 have been completed, whichever is earlier.” None of this is discussed in the EDP. From the final point above, it appears that there is no provision for appeal. As such, I argue that the EDP – at least its Point No. 4 – violates the Memorandum of Agreement between UW and the FAUW. Additional comments regarding the lack of consultation between the Dean of Mathematics and myself which must also be taken into consideration In the above discussion, there was no reference to the health issues which I have dealt with throughout my career. After several years of frustration, I eventually I sought medical accommodations via the FAUW. An agreement was developed (with Sally Gunz) and adapted over several years, with the most recent version from 2011. The Dean of Mathematics, Mark Giesbrecht, is most certainly aware of these issues since he served as the Chair of my Department, the Cheriton School of Computer Science. (Indeed, he has been recently corresponding with a representative from the FAUW about my health issues.) This is another reason why I was surprised that Mark did not consult with me prior to the suspensions being imposed. At a School Council Meeting (September 8, 2021) when I brought up teaching my course, a senior colleague said I did not have to appear on campus. Well before the appearance of the “noncompliance memo”, I had been in e-mail communication with Mark and others suggesting that I could teach my course (Jan 2022) remotely, which I was already equipped to do. At this time, I do not feel comfortable returning to an on campus because of previous correspondence within the School, on forums and in private e-mail exchanges with colleagues in Computer Science regarding the vaccine mandate. I was particularly struck by one disrespectful statement posted to the Faculty mailing list. What was particularly disturbing is that the senior faculty member said that he was not alone in his opinions. Given my past and current difficulties within the Department, for the University to force me to be in the possible physical presence of others who not only disagreed with me but who would probably do what they could to show their rejection of me – in other words, not only an unwelcome environment but a toxic one. One would think that Mark, with his previous knowledge of my health issues along with these more recent events, would understand that the suspensions, especially the 42-day one, would have an extremely negative effect on me. Since it is most probable that Mark, as Dean of Mathematics, was responsible for providing senior administration with a list of names of noncompliant faculty and staff members in his Faculty, I am rather surprised that my name would be passed on as a candidate for suspension. In my mind, it shows complete insensitivity to my health condition. All of this adds to the gravity of this grievance.