10.2190/W096-NWCK-KYB2-1WJW W096NWCKKYB21WJW 159 PEER REVIEW VERSUS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES 159 168 20031029 20031029 20031029 20031029 W096NWCKKYB21WJW.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=W096NWCKKYB21WJW 2 MASHAALAH RAHNAMA-MOGHADAM Texas Tech University, Lubbock This article examines the peer review processes in Public Universities in the United States developed to resolve faculty rights complaints. The peer review processes, in general, do not meet the same standards of procedural and distributive justice that are generally expected of grievance procedures negotiated at arm-length. The procedural problems alone suggest that universities with peer review process may examine the efficacy of their dispute resolution processes. The results concerning distributive justice are inclusive and require additional examination before conclusions may be drawn with respect to peer review. The President's National Labor-Management Conference, No. 5-30, 1945, U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards, Bulletin No. 77, 1946. F. Witney and B. J. Taylor, Labor Relations Law, (7th Edition), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 270-274, 1996. N.L.R.B. v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980). T. Leas, Higher Education, the Courts and the "Doctrine" of Academic Abstention, Journal of Law and Education, 20:2, pp. 135-165, Spring 1991. D. A. Dilts, Assessing What Professors Do: An Introduction of Academic Performance Appraisal in Higher Education, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1994. F. C. Lunenburg, Collective Bargaining in the Public Schools: Issues, Tactics, and New Strategies, Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 29:4, pp, 259-272, 2000. F. R. Annuziato, Unionization Among College Faculty--1994, National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, Newsletter, Baruch College, New York, 1994. D. A. Dilts, C. R. Deitsch, and A. Rassuli, Labor Relations Law in State and Local Government, Chapter 2, Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut, 1992. N.L.R.B. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979). C. F. Cohen, Justice and Peer Review Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 28:2, pp. 83-92, 1999. For example see, H. D. Hineman and D. B. Patton, Unionism in State and Local Governments: Ohio and Illinois, 1982-87, Industrial Relations, 33:1, pp. 106-120, 1994; S. K. Ali and A. R. Karim, An Empirical Examination of Determinants of Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining, Journal of Negotiations in the Public Sector, 21:1, pp. 79-92, 1992; and C. Rodriquez and J. Readen, Attitudes of Faculty Toward Unionization, Psychological Reports, 65, pp. 995-1000, 1989, among other studies examining these issues. Code of Conduct of the American Arbitration Association, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and National Academy of Arbitrators, memograph, American Arbitration Association, 1999. These cases are commonly referred to as the Steelworkers Trilogy: Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing, 363 U.S. 564 (1960); Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car, 363 U.S. 593 (1960); and Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation, 363 U.S. 574 (1960). D. McCabe, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Employee Voice in Nonunion Employment: An Ethical Analysis of Organizational Due Process Procedures and Mechanisms--The Case of the United States, Journal of Business Ethics, 16, pp. 349-356, 1997.