What has The Union Done for You Lately?

by Barbara Hanfling, Executive Director

1.       Summer School Informal Grievance: Settlement in the Works      

Almost 2 years ago, the Union’s fiscal officer, Linda Ferrell brought to the attention of the Union that her rate of pay had been changed during her summer teaching months. When Linda taught summer school she had her past contracts that stated she moved from one step to the next step effective July 1. This would of course only impact faculty who are new and at the first 10 steps (including the stutter steps).

Then suddenly two years ago, the District ceased paying her for her step increase on July 1 without notice or discussion with the faculty members or the Union.  The Union immediately brought this to the attention of the Human Resources department. But with no HR Director and the department in transition, this potential grievance sat for a while.  In the last week, we have finally received a settlement proposal and the document stating what faculty worked during the summer of 2005 and 2006 and how much money would be owed. The total amount owed to faculty is about $4270.

Once the agreement is signed we will notify SJCC faculty who will be receiving additional money for their summer employment of 2005 and 2006. The District maintains and the evidence appears to substantiate that EVC faculty were never paid two rates for summer school. However, with the settlement of this agreement faculty working summer school will be paid only at the rate of pay effective when they begin their assignment, as the long term history of payment during the summer has been irregular and inconsistent. Thanks to Linda Ferrell for her due diligence and persistence. As the Union frequently says, check your pay stubs to ensure your salary is correct.

2.  Retroactive Pay for Contract Settlement:
When the Union and District settled their three year contract the date stated that the 5.92% salary increase was to go into effect on July 1, 2006. When the retroactive checks were issued to the faculty, the District determined based on what had occurred in the past that the July 1, 2006 date in the contract did not mean, July 1, 2006. The District paid faculty retroactive pay only to the beginning of the semester, fall 2006.

The Union made a demand letter to the District leadership and Vice Chancellors, Anita Morris and Ron Root back in January. In part the letter stated:

Donna and Ron,  It has come to the Union’s attention that the effective date of the contract and our retroactive raise which was July 1, 2006,  was not implemented in the most recent retroactive pay award received today by full time faculty.

The agreement states that the 5.92% increase will be retroactive to July 1, 2006. This can only be interpreted to mean that all faculty will receive retroactive pay to July 1, 2006. Any full time and adjunct who worked in the month of July 2006 would receive the 5.92% increase retroactively. This is also the date that the COLA is implemented by the state.

Over the past 2 months the Union has been trying to get the ear of the District to understand this issue. We have requested an extension of timelines on any potential grievance to be filed. We are clearly having difficulty understanding how July 1, 2006 can mean anything else other than that date.  The District is trying to confuse the issue by stating that in the past we have settled on July 1, but agreed that the retroactive date would be the first pay period in the fall.  That may be the case, but at this time we have given notice to the District of our intent to receive retroactive pay the same as any administrator or classified employee.

The FA, AFT 6157 will keep you informed of the progress on this issue.

3.  San Jose City College-Violated Collective Bargaining Agreement and Trust- Layoff Averted

By: Bob Reininger-SJCC Electronics Faculty and Barbara Hanfling, FA, AFT 6157 Executive Director

In 2005-2006 it was proposed by the district that 8 faculty members would be laid off. It was a huge number and the impact would be tremendous. During the course of events leading up to March 15th letters, the Union was able to negotiate numerous successes: only two faculty would be laid off; one faculty would retire, one would be given course work at both EVC/SJCC, one resigned, and 2-3 faculty transferred to other FSA’s in order to ensure and protect as many faculty as possible. This was great news.

Along with the fact many jobs were saved, the Union and District bargained a $50,000 fund for retraining of faculty affected by the layoffs. It was a great collaborative victory.

In the fall of 2006, the Union met with the administration of the SJCC and the District and placed on the agenda the issue of layoffs. In November 2006, the Union was assured by the interim President Jess Carreon that there would be no layoffs in this academic year 2006-07. With that understanding, we all moved onto other important topics.

The contract between the District and Union in Article 23.1 states the following:

“The District shall inform the FA on or before January 15 of a year in which a reduction in force (RIF) is anticipated of its intentions to implement RIF as defined the in the Education Code and shall provide the FA with documentation of the reasons the District believes a RIF is necessary. If the FA is not informed and provided documentation by January 15, the District may implement a RIF as long as good cause exists and reasonable notice and documentation is provided…including the reasons for the past January 15 deadline.”

This is the very strong protection we have bargained to avoid surprise last minute attacks on the rights of our faculty with regards to layoffs. This enables us to prepare and be prepared.  This does not allow the District, 3 weeks before the March 15th deadline to suddenly decide “we need to have a layoff”, but we won’t contact the Union.

But below is the exception to the rule, a case in point where the administration did not follow the contract.

Bob Reininger’s Story
These are the thoughts that are going through my mind regarding the incident.

I am deeply angered that any administrator would feel justified in calling a meeting with a faculty member about the faculty members’ termination/layoff without fair warning as to the seriousness of the meeting.  
So my story goes like this.
My dean, Kathy Werle called me about 1 p.m. and asked if I could attend a meeting before class tonight and I agreed to a 4:30 p.m. meeting on February 20th.  She and Vice President Tim O’Hare wanted to meet with me.

But wait a minute, what was the topic to be discussed, it was unusual to have the VP of the college attend meetings with me. I called my dean to get the answer and she said, “to discuss the fall schedule.”

It was an ambush. Unless, of course, you can explain to me how “schedule for the fall semester” is equivalent to the ultimatum: “submit a letter of retirement effective December 2007 or be laid off this June”. 

I was told that there was insufficient load for me in the next academic year and that I was being given the choice of either being laid off this coming June or I could submit a “binding” letter of retirement effective December 2007.  If I chose the December retirement. I would be able to keep my medical benefits for another 6 months. Tim O’Hare stated that this had been discussed with Anita Morris, the VC of Human Resources. Had Anita bothered to call the Union to inform them that a layoff might occur? Did she have the respect to quickly pick up the phone and notify the Union? No!

(Gulp!)  This was a shock. (My real feelings are not printable.)  So, when did I have to make a decision?  There was some stuttering and an apology about busy schedules preventing attention to this issue but in order to make the deadline to be put on the board agenda, a decision should be made today (4:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 20th). 

I balked!  I was expected to make a decision to terminate my teaching career, close to 30 years, in a matter of minutes without the benefit of representation or exploration of alternative paths.  When I said that I needed more time, the deadline was extended to Friday.  (A scant two days to accept layoff or find some alternative.) 

This was outrageous!

I came to a meeting to discuss “schedule” and wound up with an ultimatum and an “eleventh hour” deadline that was like someone holding a gun to my head.

Was the union asked to attend? - Well, no.  The District did not think it was necessary. Are there any training options so I can teach in another discipline? - Well, probably no.  There is no money.  But when people were laid off last year they had some option for retraining. - Well, there might be some money left.

After the Ambush:
But the story is just starting. It would be an understatement to say that I was “moved to action”.  I had just suffered a surprise attack, an assault, and not from people who I would identify as enemies but from people that I would expect to be supportive and protective. 

At 5:00 p.m., I had contacted Patrick Butler, Grievance Officer of the Union.  He told me to write an email stating the facts of the meeting to the David (Yancey) and Barbara (Hanfling), President and Executive Director.

I composed the email and received word back from Barbara at 11:00 a.m. the next day. The “eleventh hour” layoff was stopped. Barbara had contacted President Jess Carreon who stated “he was a man of his word” and he had said no layoffs, so there would be no layoffs.

It was as if a huge weight had been lifted from my shoulders.  Where, 20 hours earlier, I had felt beaten and abused.  I now felt that someone was looking out after my interest and well-being.  (My hat is off to Barbara.)

As you read this, picture yourself in my place. How would you have reacted to this ultimatum?

The only advice I can give you is:
·        I can think of no “life or death” career decision that has to be made in the next 30 minutes!  None!
·        Anytime someone tries to exert pressure on you to make a decision be suspicious. Think about it.
·        Have some interval of time between hearing an offer and coming to a decision to think about the untended effects of the offer.
·        Remember, you have a union that will give you advice and support. Call them, ask to postpone the meeting until you have representation, and make sure your rights are protected.

It is hard to adequately express my appreciation for intervention and support of the FA, AFT 6157 on my behalf. Without the quick and decisive action on their part, the layoff may have ended up on the March agenda, a battle would have been fought at the Board of Trustee level and my own state of mind and job would have hung in limbo.