“Rutgers not only promised URA that the deferred raise would be paid as scheduled in the MOA, it made that same promise to the State in order to receive the 5.25% of its allocation that would have otherwise been withheld. Rutgers is not free to break either of these promises. The URA negotiations unit must, therefore, receive retroactive payment in full of the June 30, 2010 deferred raise promised in the MOA.”
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF URA-AFT Local 1766, Submitted by Bennet Zurofsky, Esq.

URA’s grievance on the Rutgers 2010 salary freeze is finally in the hands of Arbitrator Robert Light. This complicated and unnecessary process began on June 10, when Old Queens decided to break the Memorandum of Agreement which they had signed with our union in December 2009. The process included: protests and demonstrations by URA, AAUP AFSCME and Doctor’s Council, as well as labor supporters and students, an Order to Show Cause filed with the Public Employee Relations Commission by the attorneys for the four unions, nearly 1000 documents entered into evidence, six days of hearings, submission of written briefs and finally, rebuttal briefs.

Beginning in June, Rutgers management has argued that neither our contract nor the Memorandum of Agreement requires them either to pay the negotiated raises, or to demonstrate that they are unable to pay. President McCormick and Vice President Furmanski have tried to convince even our members that their actions are permitted under our contract.

The brief prepared by URA’s attorney, Bennet Zurofsky, Esq. and his reply to the brief submitted by John Peirano, Esq. (the outside attorney hired to represent management) explain the union’s side of this case in depth. They explain the fundamental dishonesty in the way Old Queens has negotiated and interpreted contract language since the first salary freeze in 2009.

Please feel free to read all or some of these important documents at http://www.ura-aft.org/node/587.