When McMaster University's faculty of health sciences slashed noted pediatrician Dr. José Venturelli's salary, he didn't get mad, he filed a grievance. Dr. Venturelli claimed that the combination of a cut to his base salary and an imposed increase in clinical work undermined his ability to engage in teaching and research, the core functions of an academic.

However, for a grievance to succeed at McMaster there must be a violation of "a duly enacted policy or established practice." Although the panel hearing his case acknowledged that Dr. Venturelli's academic work was seriously threatened, it found that the university had no established benchmark setting the proper ratio of time spent in clinical and academic duties. Without the violation of a specific policy or practice, the grievance could not succeed.

But the panel did have supportive words for Dr. Venturelli. They found the budgetary decisions at issue were threatening the ability of clinical faculty members to engage in teaching and research. In a strongly worded concluding statement, the judgement warned the faculty of health sciences it must "seek avenues of change with respect to how it is financed, in order that this erosion of academic rights and freedoms ceases."

Armed with this vindication, Dr. Venturelli and his supporters are now planning their political campaign to ensure that the teaching and research rights of clinical faculty are protected.