Ithaca committee hears graduate workers urge just-cause protections for fellows; Workers Center outlines citywide proposal

The Special Committee on Wrongful Discharge and Labor Protections met in June to hear public comment and a proposal aimed at reducing wrongful termination in Ithaca and extending job-security protections to workers paid through fellowships.

Graduate workers and union leaders told the committee that some Cornell researchers who are funded through fellowships are treated as non-workers and therefore fall outside collective-bargaining protections. "Fellows do the exact same work as other researchers," said Katrina Davis, a union steward with UE Local 300, urging the committee to write into any ordinance a clear definition that would include fellows under a just-cause standard.

Several speakers described personal cases they said illustrated the problem. Andrea Cicerello, financial secretary for UE Local 300, recounted a friend she named as Deepa Chattergy who, Cicerello said, was pushed out of her program after failing a qualifying exam despite performing research funded by the National Science Foundation. "She would have been able to fight for her more effectively if she were covered by our contract," Cicerello said. Gabe Sekers, a second-year PhD student and union vice president, said his cohort began with 14 students and that four who failed qualifying exams subsequently left the university; he called the exams an unreliable basis for employment decisions that can mask bias.

Representatives of the Tompkins County Workers Center laid out the basics of a circulated draft ordinance. Pete Myers, a center founder, framed the measure as protecting housing, health care and family stability by requiring basic procedural fairness when employers terminate workers. Adam Hart, speaking for the coalition, summarized policy features the draft includes: a 90-day probationary period before just-cause protections attach; a requirement that employers use progressive discipline and document corrective conversations; an education fund to support worker and employer outreach; and a workers rights commission to hear complaints, supported by a mayor-appointed director and hearing officers.

Hart said the commission would generally be a first-line, low-cost body that would rely on volunteers and community organizations for support and that the city attorney would step in only after a commission ruling went unenforced. The proposed education fund, he said, would split resources between city-provided education and a grant pool for community groups that could teach workers and employers about rights and processes.

Council members pressed presenters on feasibility and legal risk. Alderperson Trumble and others raised concerns about quorum, impartiality and how the commission would operate if members were absent. Alderperson Keel and others pushed back on cost estimates, noting a city manager estimate that implementation could require additional staff; Hart and Myers countered that comparable local programs scale to only a few adjudicated cases per year and emphasized a phased rollout and education-first approach.

Business and nonprofit concerns were voiced during public comment and by council members. One speaker, who identified himself as a long-time food service worker, warned that removing at-will quickly could burden small businesses and asked the committee whether the city attorney believed a legal challenge to a just-cause ordinance was likely and who would bear legal defense costs. Committee members repeatedly requested a formal legal opinion from the assistant city attorney on preemption, jurisdiction (for remote or out-of-state employers), and whether the city could lawfully define fellows as workers under a municipal ordinance.

Several council members suggested hybrid models, including a private right of action, civil arbitration, or a quasi-judicial commission; members also discussed pilot or phased enforcement that would prioritize education and focus initially on brick-and-mortar workplaces or industries with higher complaint rates. Trumble and others suggested exploring partnerships with Cornell-affiliated legal clinics and local nonprofits to provide low-cost representation for workers who pursue complaints.

Procedural actions taken during the meeting included approval of the minutes (moved by Alderperson Mantu, seconded by Alderperson Trumble) and a five-minute recess motion (moved by Alderperson Trumble, seconded by Alderperson Sohl), which the chair recorded as passing 3–1.

Next steps: the committee requested that the assistant city attorney provide a written legal opinion for the July meeting that addresses preemption and whether fellowships can be included in a municipal definition of "employee." The chair also said the July agenda will include presentations or testimony from the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, the Collegetown Community Collective, the Gimme Coffee Union, and labor law experts from Cornell, including a possible appearance by Dr. Angela Cornell of the Cornell Labor Law Clinic.

The committee's discussion focused on trade-offs between providing procedural protections for workers who lack contract coverage and minimizing new burdens on small employers; members signaled interest in a phased, education-first approach and in designing enforcement to limit fiscal risk to the city while preserving remedies for workers harmed by improper termination.

The committee adjourned after setting those next steps.