Officials review former custodian's employment

Administrators met with local groups and former Duke employee Johnny Hudson Monday to discuss Hudson's questionable employment status.

Duke Organizing-a campus group committed to building better community relations within the University-filed a petition Feb. 20 appealing Hudson's dismissal.

Hudson, who had worked as a custodian at Cameron Indoor Stadium, was dismissed for "bad work performance" 10 days prior to the end of his 90-day probationary period. After being accused of stealing a closet key, Hudson was also issued a "no-trespass" order, which prohibits him from being on campus.

The group also filed a second petition calling to establish a public grievance process for Duke employees under the probationary period, which is a trial period of employment before workers are hired permanently.

"There were aspects of our proposals the administrators expressed sympathy to, but none were accepted as proposed," said David Rice, a second-year graduate student in the political science department and a member of Duke Organizing.

Administrators will postpone their decision regarding Hudson's re-employment at Duke until a thorough review of his case is completed by Kemel Dawkins, vice president of campus services.

"I felt that [the administrators] weren't trying to hear what we were saying," Hudson said. "At this point I don't think it's hopeful."

John Burness, senior vice president for public and government relations, said he thought the discussion went well.

Dawkins reported at the meeting that he is currently reviewing the Hudson case, and it will be re-evaluated once the review is completed, Burness said.

"We're worried that this is something that's going to be dragged on," Rice said, adding that Duke Organizing is worried about the investigation's timeliness.

The administration did not set any deadline for the completion of Hudson's review.

Hudson said he believes Dawkins' investigation is just a "smoke screen." He said the administrators were unaware of his current "no-trespass" status, which is one of his biggest concerns.

"Kemel Dawkins doesn't even know about my 'no-trespass,' what does he know about the case?" he said. "They don't know about my 'no-rehire' [status] either."

Burness confirmed that none of the administrators at the meeting were aware of Hudson's "no-trespass" status.

"We have to wait and see, try to understand how it occurred," he said.

Duke Organizing members said there were suspicious circumstances surrounding Hudson's dismissal-he was scheduled to testify against his new supervisor before he was fired.

The Duke men's basketball staff wrote a letter on Hudson's behalf Feb. 25 expressing their satisfaction with his work. The letter was signed by members of both the men's and women's basketball teams.

"From our perspective, Johnny did a great job," the letter read. "Johnny... was providing the consistency we needed as a high profile program with high standards and heavy demands."

Hudson expressed gratitude to the team.

"Working... around those guys was the most positive experience of my life," he said.

Hudson said he has been actively looking for a new job with no success.

Duke Organizing also proposed to establish new procedures in dealing with Duke employees in the probationary period.

Burness said Duke's current contract with Union 77 regarding workers in probation hinders forming new procedures.

To revise any procedures, the entire contract must be re-examined and every issue looked at, which is a very complicated process, Burness said.

"In my experience, it is very rare that contracts are re-opened because it involves so many issues," he said. "The issue could be discussed in the next Union negotiations."

The current three-year contract was signed in July 2005.

Rice said Duke Organizing felt the administration was greatly emphasizing existing procedures.

"The administration continued to express confidence that their procedures are sufficient and fair," Rice said. "And we continued to say that from what we've heard the employees are not protected by these procedures."

Discussion

Share and discuss “Officials review former custodian's employment” on social media.