Letter to Cantor, re: Retrenchment of Adjunct Faculty
Item
VLADECK, ELIAS, VLADECK 8 LEwiIs, P. C.
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ISO! BROADWAY - NEW YORK, N.Y. 10036
AREA CODE 2il2
STEPHEN C. VLADECK
SYLVAN H. ELIAS 221-2550
JUDITH P. VLADECK ‘
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
EVERETT E&. LEWIS
SHELDON ENGELHARD
Pay wee KILHENNY 221-2555 oak ROB RNS
DEBORAH A. WATARZ Fn
ROBERT L, JAUVTIS on Hy
ROBERT A. CANTORE November 4 1975 == 8
1 Fe
my 5
Mr. Arnold Cantor , Ex
Executor Director = sited
Professional Staff Congress/CUNY es 8
25 West 43rd Street a 8
New York, New York 10036 on &
“that the reason therefor has been as a
Re; Retrenchment of Adjunct Faculty
Dear Arnold:
This will confirm my telephone conversation with you
with regard to the processing of the grievance concerning
the retrenchment of adjuncts by the Board of Higher
Education and the possibility of success in an arbitration
proceeding,
As I stated to you, adjunct lecturers do not acquire
either tenure or a Certificate of Continuous Employment,
Section 11.4 very specifically describes the adjunct faculty
as those who "are not full time members of the City University
faculty and who teach part time or who have other part time
assignments in the University." Article 12, which deals with
appointment and Certificate of Continuous Employment, pro-
vides only that "no part time (faculty) shall be denied re-
appointment on the basis of professional incompetence unless
he has been evaluated a number of periods." As I understand
it, those who have been retrenched or laid off have been told
result of budgetary
problems and for no other reason.
The original award in this case, of course, was the
Wildebush award, which determined that the only basis for
the termination of lecturers part-time or adjunct lecturers
was just because of curriculum change, budgetary consideration,
lack of regiStration and so on. Implicit in all of the awards
and in the contract itself is that adjunct faculty has no
job security where the University can utilize one of those
reasons for termination and sustain its position with regard
to it.
i min sates
Mr, Arnold Cantor c2- November 4, 1975
Under the circumstances, I do not believe that there is
any way of establishing a case supporting the adjunct faculty's
position, It has no job security beyond that specifically pro-
vided for in the agreement and I would not recommend that the
issue be arbitrated since I doubt that there is any possibility
for success.
I would, of course, be glad to meet with you or any of
your officers to discuss it further should you feel that such
discussion is warranted.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Vladeck
SCV:cc
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ISO! BROADWAY - NEW YORK, N.Y. 10036
AREA CODE 2il2
STEPHEN C. VLADECK
SYLVAN H. ELIAS 221-2550
JUDITH P. VLADECK ‘
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
EVERETT E&. LEWIS
SHELDON ENGELHARD
Pay wee KILHENNY 221-2555 oak ROB RNS
DEBORAH A. WATARZ Fn
ROBERT L, JAUVTIS on Hy
ROBERT A. CANTORE November 4 1975 == 8
1 Fe
my 5
Mr. Arnold Cantor , Ex
Executor Director = sited
Professional Staff Congress/CUNY es 8
25 West 43rd Street a 8
New York, New York 10036 on &
“that the reason therefor has been as a
Re; Retrenchment of Adjunct Faculty
Dear Arnold:
This will confirm my telephone conversation with you
with regard to the processing of the grievance concerning
the retrenchment of adjuncts by the Board of Higher
Education and the possibility of success in an arbitration
proceeding,
As I stated to you, adjunct lecturers do not acquire
either tenure or a Certificate of Continuous Employment,
Section 11.4 very specifically describes the adjunct faculty
as those who "are not full time members of the City University
faculty and who teach part time or who have other part time
assignments in the University." Article 12, which deals with
appointment and Certificate of Continuous Employment, pro-
vides only that "no part time (faculty) shall be denied re-
appointment on the basis of professional incompetence unless
he has been evaluated a number of periods." As I understand
it, those who have been retrenched or laid off have been told
result of budgetary
problems and for no other reason.
The original award in this case, of course, was the
Wildebush award, which determined that the only basis for
the termination of lecturers part-time or adjunct lecturers
was just because of curriculum change, budgetary consideration,
lack of regiStration and so on. Implicit in all of the awards
and in the contract itself is that adjunct faculty has no
job security where the University can utilize one of those
reasons for termination and sustain its position with regard
to it.
i min sates
Mr, Arnold Cantor c2- November 4, 1975
Under the circumstances, I do not believe that there is
any way of establishing a case supporting the adjunct faculty's
position, It has no job security beyond that specifically pro-
vided for in the agreement and I would not recommend that the
issue be arbitrated since I doubt that there is any possibility
for success.
I would, of course, be glad to meet with you or any of
your officers to discuss it further should you feel that such
discussion is warranted.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Vladeck
SCV:cc
Title
Letter to Cantor, re: Retrenchment of Adjunct Faculty
Description
This 1975 letter from Stephen C. Vladeck, a prominent labor lawyer a to Mr. Arnold Cantor, Executive Director of the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) expressed doubt about the wrongful termination of an adjunct professor and recommended that the union not take the case to arbitration.
Contributor
Professional Staff Congress
Creator
Vladeck, Stephen C.
Date
November 4, 1975
Language
English
Rights
Copyrighted
Source
The Tamiment Institute Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives
Original Format
Correspondence
Vladeck, Stephen C. Letter. “Letter to Cantor, Re: Retrenchment of Adjunct Faculty.”, CUNY DIGITAL HISTORY ARCHIVE, accessed March 10, 2026, https://stephenz.tailc22a4b.ts.net/s/cdha/item/1389
Time Periods
1970-1977 Open Admissions - Fiscal Crisis - State Takeover
