Archive: Apr 2018

  1. March Science 2018

    Comments Off on March Science 2018

    This Saturday is the 2018 March for Science in Hartford! While technically not a ‘march’ there will be a gathering with exhibitors and speakers from 12noon-3pm.  

    The gathering is at the Minuteman Park (at 328 Capitol Ave, next to the Legislative Office Building) and is hosted by March for Science, Hartford in conjunction with the 2018 March for Science.   

    Please see this FAQ for important information if you’re planning to attend. *  

    Kind Regards,  

    UCHC-AAUP Team  

    PS. Here’s an article about the March for Science organization from Science magazine at 

    *From the FAQ- The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is holding a pro-gun rally at the Capitol the same date as the March for Science. The Legislative Office building provides a large physical barrier between the two events, and both Capitol and Hartford police will be present at the CCDL rally. We do not anticipate any problems, but please be aware that this is occurring.



  2. “A Cautionary Tale: The Aronow Case”

    Comments Off on “A Cautionary Tale: The Aronow Case”

    Connecticut Commission on Human Rights Rules Against UConn Health

    Sometimes, the wheels of justice turn slowly. On February 14, 2018, after a seven-year battle, the State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ruled in favor of Dr. Michael Aronow in his whistleblower complaint against the  University of Connecticut Health Center (UCH).

    In September of 2011, Dr. Aronow filed a grievance with the Health Center Appeals Committee (HCAC). The state tribunal agreed that, subsequent to his filing of that appeal, Dr. Aronow was subjected to several retaliatory actions by UCH that resulted in damage to his career and his finances. Those actions also resulted in disruption to the care of patients. The final decision rendered by the tribunal can be found here. It documents instances in which UCH treated Dr. Aronow prejudicially, kept crucial information hidden from him, ignored the orders of the tribunal, and undermined the clear language of the by-laws and grievance process by, among other actions, conducting an extra-judicial investigation, arranging ex-parte meetings, and failing to provide a neutral liaison to Dr. Aronow throughout the proceedings.

    The state tribunal concluded that UCH “showed resentment, animosity, and contempt” for Dr. Aronow’s grievance while UCH “harbored impermissible retaliatory animus” toward him. This stemmed from what the tribunal characterized as, “an air of retaliatory animus that permeated the [Health Center’s] corridors.” Further, they found that the actions of UCH “were against their own (hence the taxpayers [sic]) financial interest, and against past practices and policies.”

    An understanding of what occurred provides an extremely powerful argument for the necessity of union representation. It demonstrates, unfortunately, that even when bylaws, policies, and procedures are in place and codified, adherence to them is not a foregone conclusion, much less guaranteed. The good news is that, as a faculty member, you need not “go it alone.”

    Our union contract provides for ‘just cause’ in discipline and a grievance and arbitration process. In cases involving discipline and contract violations, faculty can elect a route of due process rather than utilizing internal UCH processes (e.g., the Health Center Appeals Committee). The external grievance and arbitration process involves the assignment of a neutral third party to rule in cases of discipline or contract violations. Especially in light of the case discussed above, we urge members to consider seriously the contractual grievance and arbitration process vs internal UCH processes whenever a choice is possible. At minimum, we urge you to contact the union to discuss your options. Remember, the UCHC-AAUP is here to support you and your interests and to ensure that all faculty receive a fair shake. Do not hesitate to contact us for representation and assistance concerning UCH administrative matters.

    Here is a link to our union contract and another to the Aronow Decision.



  3. Let’s stand together in the face of a possible national ‘right to work’ decision by the Supreme Court!

    Comments Off on Let’s stand together in the face of a possible national ‘right to work’ decision by the Supreme Court!


    By Cindy Polinsky, Executive Director

    Last week we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. (assassinated the day after he supported striking sanitation workers). His words still ring true and wise. The quote in the photo above is about so-called right to work states, the slogan that means that everyone in the union receives the same benefits whether they pay dues or not. Unions are much weaker in the divisive environment of ‘right to work’ states. The upcoming Janus decision threatens to weaken public sector union across the country. We’re asking everyone to stick together by signing new membership forms. The new forms will provide members an annual window in which you can withdraw your membership. Of course, we want to encourage everyone to stay in the union! To see more information about the impact ‘right to work’ legislation, click here. (click here to download a card. After you sign it, contact me at and I will come pick it up!)