The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, August 12, 1976, Image 1
vol. lxvii. no. 62 University of South Carolina, Columbia, 8.C. Thursday, august 12, 3976
Mil HM IP IMIIWIH . HHMIWMWMir llllllll Ill !!! Ill 11 111111IIIII III IIIW
if
? Bookstore i
By Wayne T. Brooks "1
Two weeks ago two part-time student sol
employes and one full-time employe of the i
Campus Bookstore were fired. The an
students were given four days notice. The Fii
full-time employe, Marguerite Fox, was Op
given one day's notice.
All three employes worked in the Book ve
Corner, the paperback section of the an
Campus Bookstore, managed by Winifred g?>
\{;rx 4 -i.-J A ?
i*me. jiuc iwu siuuenis, Merry bateman t*a
9 and Charles Roberts, were told they were dis
dismissed because of economic reasons. 1
Bateman and Roberts went to Om- se<
budsman Skip Hardin, who spoke with Ben ab
Swabson, manager of the Campus Ro
Bookstore. Swanson would not give Hardin of
any reason for the termination of Bateman wo
and Roberts. mi
"Students are unclassified. Therefore 1
they can be terminated without prior sp<
notice. This is a university regulation," J
Hardin explained. Under this regulation, va
an employer does not have to give a reason dis
) for dismissal. au
Hardin said that when he asked King we
about the dismissal, she said nothing. gi\
Bjmmm m\
firings spai
'hey (Swanson and King) were conlidated
on the issue," Hardin said.
\s a manager, Swanson may hire or fire
yone he wants to, according to Douglas
tzgeraid, assistant to Vice President of
aerations Harold Brunton.
rhe Ombudsman is empowered to instigate
complaints of students, faculty
d staff, Hardin said. But Swanson would
re no specific reasons for dismissing
teman and Roberts, only that he was
ISatisfipH with tVioir "in"!'
TT aval VilVIl TfUl I\.
Fox, who also worked in the paperback
:tion of the bookstore, spoke with Hardin
out the dismissal of Bateman and
berts. Hardin said Fox spoke favorably
the students, saying they were good
rkers and did not deserve to be ternated.
Fox was dismissed the same day she
oke with Hardin.
Swanson left yesterday for a week's
cation. When asked about the
imissals, King said she did not have the <
thority to say why Bateman and Roberts
re released from work. She said she had ;
ren them no reasons for their dismissal.
mm
rk confrovt
But later when she was asked if she had
told them they were fired for economic
reasons, she said. "Yes wnnnmin
, _ ?, i vaouilO
were involved."
Charles Roberts, a USC student, had
worked part-time at Campus Bookstore
since last November. He worked in the
Book Corner under King checking in
books. On the Monday of the week he was
dismissed from work, he was informed by
King that he would no longer be able to
work there after the end of the week.
Bateman, who had worked under King in
the Rook fftrnpr (nr- oKrx..? ~
>ui cmAiui d year, was
fired at the same time as Roberts. King,
she said, informed that they were being
released because of economic reasons. "I
suspect that personality conflicts were
involved instead," Bateman added.
Hardin, Bateman said, asked Swanson
to talk to her and Rnhortc e...
?i, uui owciiiauii
refused.
Hardin noted that he gave Swanson the
option of telling Bateman and Roberts why
there were fired, or to not tell them.
Swanson chose not to tell them. "I per
i) itumtimiiaiiiv^
mm
irsy
fairly,'" Hardin said.
Hardin added that he would work with
Swanson and M. D. Tavenner of Personnel
to have all student positions coordinated,
to try to draw up grievance procedures
and to create job descriptions where
possible.
Julie Cox, a former employe of the
Campus Bookstore, worked for six mon
ins, irom July 1973 to January 1974. as a
temporary full-time employe in the
paperback section without assistance. She
had applied for a permanent position that
would be made available, and was interviewed
for the job prior to Swanson's
appointment as manager. Told that she
was "not qualified" Cox was offered a job
as a cashier, but refused and was fired."I
was supposed to get the job Mrs. King
eventually got," Cox said.
Cox later filed a complaint with the
Equal Opportunity Commission in May
1974 on discrimination charges, but the
EOC did not find any discrimination.