Printed on: 01/08/2026. Please go to policy.umn.edu for the most current version of the document.
University of Minnesota  Administrative Policy

Conflict Resolution for Faculty, P&A, Civil Service, and Student Employees

Sidebar

Expand all

Sidebar

Table of Contents

Questions?

Please use the contact section below.

Leave Feedback

Policy Statement

The University of Minnesota (“University”) is committed to the good faith review and resolution of workplace conflicts. Non-labor represented faculty, academic professional and administrative (P&A) staff, civil service staff, and student employees may access the University’s options for the resolution of workplace conflicts. These options include:

  • informal services to encourage prompt resolution of workplace conflicts and
  • a formal petition process reserved for certain employment-related grievances that were not resolved through informal services.

Scope

This conflict resolution policy applies to non-labor represented faculty, P&A staff, civil service staff, and student employees. 

In limited circumstances, the policy may also apply to faculty emeriti or recently terminated employees. Please see policy Appendix: Exclusions, Limitations, and other Jurisdictional Considerations for additional information regarding eligibility.

In alignment with Board of Regents Policy: Conflict Resolution Process for Employees, complaints alleging that the president, or any other employee who reports directly to the Board of Regents (Board), personally engaged in a challenged action shall be referred to the chair of the Board, who shall determine whether the conflict resolution process set forth in this policy must be adjusted to ensure fair consideration of the matter or if an independent panel should be appointed by the chair to review the complaint and make a determination.

Scope of Informal Services

Informal services are available to address a broad range of workplace conflicts. Informal conflict resolution services include, but are not limited to, confidential consultation, problem solving, facilitated discussion, and mediation, as well as educational and training opportunities facilitated by the Office for Conflict Resolution (“OCR”).

There are no fixed time limits for pursuing informal services, although conflict resolution staff may, at their discretion, decline to provide informal services when: 1) the passage of time has diminished the potential for meaningful resolution of the conflict through informal services, 2) the conflict has been previously addressed by the OCR or other offices, or 3) the OCR determines that the conflict is otherwise not appropriately addressed by its informal services.

Scope of Formal Petition Process

The formal petition process is available to resolve certain employment-related grievances that were addressed but not resolved via the OCR’s informal services. The formal petition process is initiated by the submission of a petition requesting the resolution of an eligible employment-related grievance and includes a hearing, a hearing panel decision on the employment-related grievance, and an opportunity to appeal the panel’s decision on limited grounds. The formal petition process is facilitated by the Office for Equity and Diversity’s Grievance Process Manager.

An eligible employment-related grievance must allege a violation of a specific written University rule, policy, or procedure pertaining to employment. Examples include alleged violations of the civil service rules, P&A policies, and human resources policies. Not all employment-related grievances are eligible for the formal petition process. Please see policy Appendix: Exclusions, Limitations, and other Jurisdictional Considerations to determine eligibility.

Retaliation

No member of the University community may retaliate against an individual because of the individual’s good faith participation in accessing conflict resolution services (the OCR’s informal services and the formal petition process). For more information, please see Administrative Policy: Retaliation.

Reason for Policy

This administrative policy implements Board of Regents Policy: Conflict Resolution Process for Employees. This framework for the resolution of workplace conflicts promotes early resolution of workplace conflicts and the engagement of valued University faculty, P&A, civil service, and student employees.

Contacts

SubjectContactEmail
Informal ServicesAdepeju Solarin
Director
Office for Conflict Resolution		[email protected]
Formal Petition ProcessBritt Anderson
Grievance Process Manager
Office for Equity and Diversity		[email protected]

Reporting Resources

UReport

Reports of violations of rules, regulations, and policies, including anonymous reports, may be submitted 24 hours a day through the University’s UReport reporting system.

Human Resources

Reports of violations of rules, regulations, and policies pertaining to employment may be submitted to the University’s Human Resources professionals.

Campus Title IX and Equal Opportunity Offices

Reports of sexual misconduct may be submitted to the campus Title IX Office. Reports of discrimination may be submitted to the campus Equal Opportunity office.

Responsible Individuals
Responsible Officer Policy Owner Primary Contact
  • Vice President, Office for Equity and Diversity
  • Associate Vice President, Office for Equity and Diversity
  • Adepeju Solarin
    Director, Office for Conflict Resolution
  • Britt Anderson
    Grievance Process Manager, Office for Equity and Diversity

Definitions

Advisor

An individual who is permitted to accompany a petitioner or unit-appointed respondent to hearings in the formal petition process. An advisor may conduct questioning on behalf of a party at a live hearing in the formal petition process.

Consultation

A consultation is a private meeting between an individual experiencing conflict and a member of the OCR staff. During consultation, OCR staff will seek to learn about and understand the specific situation and will work to help the individual explore options for effectively addressing the conflict.

Eligible Employment-Related Grievance

An eligible employment-related grievance must allege a violation of a specific written University rule, policy, or procedure pertaining to employment. Examples include alleged violations of the civil service rules, P&A policies, and human resources policies. Not all employment-related grievances are eligible for the formal petition process. Please see Appendix: Exclusions, Limitations, and other Jurisdictional Considerations to determine eligibility.

Facilitated Dialogue

A facilitated dialogue is a discussion between the parties to a workplace conflict with a neutral facilitator present.

Grievance Process Manager

The University employee who is charged with facilitating the formal petition process.

Mediation

Mediation is a structured process of intervention involving the parties to a workplace conflict and a third-party mediator that promotes reconciliation, settlement, or compromise.

Party

A petitioner or a unit-appointed respondent.

Petition

A petition consists of a completed Petition Form. It is a written complaint that requests the resolution of an eligible employment-related grievance through the formal petition process. A petition may only be filed for employment-related grievances that were addressed but not resolved via the OCR’s informal services. A petition must allege a violation of a specific written University rule, policy, or procedure pertaining to employment.

Petitioner

An eligible employee who files a formal petition.

Relevant

Relevant means related to the alleged violation(s) identified in the formal petition. Information and/or evidence is relevant when it may aid in determining whether the alleged violation occurred.

Retaliation

Retaliation means taking an adverse action against an individual because of the individual’s good faith participation in:

  • reporting or otherwise expressing opposition to misconduct;
  • participating in any process designed to review or investigate suspected or alleged misconduct; or
  • accessing the Office for Conflict Resolution services.

A causal relationship between the good faith participation in one of these activities and an adverse action is needed to demonstrate that retaliation has occurred.

Adverse actions are actions that might deter a reasonable person from reporting or expressing opposition to misconduct, participating in a misconduct response process, or accessing conflict resolution as set forth in the bullets above.

Examples of adverse actions include, but are not limited to:

  • impeding the individual’s academic advancement;
  • departing from any customary academic or employment practice regarding the individual;
  • firing, refusing to hire, or refusing to promote the individual;
  • transferring or assigning the individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job security, or employment or academic status;
  • providing unfounded negative job references or otherwise interfering with a job search;
  • actions that significantly disrupt the individual’s ability to participate in University programs or activities; and
  • threatening, or marginalizing an individual.

Good faith participation means: 1) reporting or otherwise expressing opposition to misconduct based on a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred or 2) honestly participating in a misconduct response process or accessing conflict resolution services.

Student Employee

Student employee means graduate assistants and student employees as defined by the Board of Regents Policy: Employee Group Definitions.

Unit-Appointed Respondent

An individual appointed by a senior administrator to respond to the petition as a party in the formal petition process.

Responsibilities

Advisor

A party may be assisted throughout the formal petition process by one advisor who may, among other things, participate in a hearing by asking questions and follow-up questions to parties and witnesses and by making opening and closing statements.

Appellate Officer

Decides appeals as set forth in this policy. Appellate Officers are identified in Appendix: University Appellate Officers.

Employment Grievance Hearing Committee (EGHC) Members

Serve as hearing officers, panelists, and advisors in the formal petition process, whose responsibilities are stated elsewhere in this section.

Grievance Process Manager

Facilitates the formal petition process, including making decisions regarding jurisdictional challenges to submitted petitions that are identified by a party or the Grievance Process Manager, recruiting and training hearing officers, panel members, and advisors, and facilitating a fair and impartial hearing process. In collaboration with the Grievance Process Manager, the Office for Conflict Resolution publishes an annual report on services offered under this policy and distributes this report annually to the Senate Consultative Committee.

Hearing Officer

A voting member of the hearing panel in the formal petition process who is responsible for additional decision-making such as, but not limited to, determining the relevance of submitted evidence for formal hearings.

Panelist

A panelist serves on a three-member hearing panel responsible for deciding whether it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct outlined in the formal petition constitutes a violation of a specific written University rule, policy, or procedure pertaining to employment.

Office for Conflict Resolution (OCR)

Resource to help resolve workplace conflicts for eligible employees through informal services. In collaboration with the Grievance Process Manager, the OCR publishes an annual report on services offered under this policy and distributes this report annually to the Senate Consultative Committee.

Senior Administrator

The president, chancellor, senior executive, vice provost, dean, vice president, or other appropriate leader of the unit that employs the individual alleged to have violated a specific written University rule, policy, or procedure pertaining to employment. The Senior Administrator appoints the unit-appointed respondent in the formal petition process.

Supervisors and Managers

In appropriate circumstances, OCR may ask an employee’s supervisor or manager to participate in a facilitated dialogue with the employee or in another informal conflict resolution process. In such circumstances, the supervisor or manager must participate in the informal process as part of their supervisory or managerial role.

Related Information

History

Amended:

July 2025. Comprehensive Review. The revised policy now has two separate procedures - one describing the informal conflict resolution process and other describing the formal conflict resolution process.

Key substantive changes include:

  • Facilitation of the formal process by the Office for Equity and Diversity’s Grievance Process Manager Britt Anderson, rather than by the Office for Conflict Resolution.
  • Excludes discrimination complaints from the formal petition process. These complaints will be addressed exclusively through the process set forth by the Administrative Policy on Discrimination.
  • Newly provides that a petition must allege a violation of a rule, policy, or procedure, and not a violation of a practice.
  • Clarifies that, at the request of the Office for Conflict Resolution, a supervisor or manager must participate in a facilitated dialogue to attempt to resolve the workplace conflict. (The current policy says that supervisors and managers are “expected” to participate
  • Newly states that a hearing panel makes a decision on the petition, subject to appeal. In the current process, the hearing panel makes a recommended decision that is submitted to the Provost, who makes a final decision.
  • Removal of the possibility of arbitration, and instead provision of an internal appeal process.
  • Newly provides more detailed procedures for the formal procedure that more closely align with procedures for other formal University grievance processes. For example, these include: a New Order of Hearing Proceedings Appendix, faster and more specific case timelines, and a statement on impermissible evidence.

Amended:

August 2020 - Addresses the prohibition of filing a formal petition with OCR in certain situations

Amended:

May 2020 - Comprehensive Review.

  1. Updates the policy owner, contact, and unit title and names of contacts.
  2. Minor edits to clarify and simplify language.
  3. Provides additional FAQs to improve guidance.
  4. Updates and increases the stated arbitration fees.

Amended:

May 2017 - Comprehensive Review.

  1. Updates the policy owner, contact, and unit title and names of contacts.
  2. Minor edits to clarify and simplify language.
  3. Provides additional FAQs to improve guidance.
  4. Updates and increases the stated arbitration fees.

Amended:

August 2017 - Minor Revision. The section on Retaliation has been updated to be consistent with core language in Administrative Policy: Retaliation.

Amended:

February 2011 - Comprehensive Review.  The following revisions were made to enhance efficiency and fair process:

  1. A prohibition on retaliation was added to Board of Regents Policy: Conflict Resolution Process for Employees.
  2. The Conflict Resolution Policy was converted to the new University-wide format for administrative policies.
  3. Existing administrative procedures were revised to encourage the use of Minnesota arbitrators and streamline the arbitration process.
  4. An estimated Minnesota arbitrator fee of $3,500 (shared equally by the University and the employee) was established. A process for University payment of arbitration fees exceeding $3,500 was added.

Effective:

February 11, 2005 – Board of Regents Policy: Conflict Resolution Process for Employees superseded Board of Regents Policy: Grievance Process. The Board of Regents policy and administrative procedures were revised to include informal ombuds services and to substitute "petition" and "conflict resolution" language for "grievance" language.

Amended:

July 12, 2002 – Board of Regents Policy: Grievance Process was adopted. It superseded the Grievance Procedure dated April 16, 1993. Revisions included expanding the scope to include faculty emeriti and revising the definition of "attorney" to include persons with J.D. degrees, who may not be licensed to practice law.

Adopted:

1993 – A University-wide Grievance Procedure for non-bargaining unit University employees was adopted.