Negotiations Report #4

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

March 4, 2025

The nuts-and-bolts of what happened on February 28th are below under Current Bargaining Report, but first:

Our reaction to the third bargaining session on Feb. 28th, and what you can do

Last week, we updated you on the District’s attempt to ban you from joining us at the bargaining table.  We were confident in our legal right to have you continue joining us at the table, which has been our practice since at least 2020-21.  And despite the District’s initial request that our faculty observers leave the negotiation on Friday . . .

We have good news on this issue!  After our Chief Negotiator, Cañada faculty member Monica Malamud, laid out our legal justification, we maintain the right to have our members observe negotiations this contract cycle.  While we still don’t have finalized ground rules, we have been able to whittle down the District’s initial proposal of 19 overly prescriptive and restrictive ground rules to a handful of basic, common-sense rules that won’t impede us in any way from negotiating the best contract possible for our members.

Don’t forget—you can sign up to join us at a future negotiation session! Next one is March 7, 2025, at 2:30 pm-5:30pm.  You can also:

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Althea Kippes, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins, Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and VP Jessica Silver Sharp.

Observers Steve Lehigh, Dianne Jones, Camille Kaslan, Rachel Cunningham, Teeka James, Lori Slicton, Sumathi Shankar, Tim Maxwell, Elinor Westfold.

District: Ellen Wu, Gerardo Ramirez, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, Melissa Moreno, Joe Morello.

Ground rules

The District opened Friday by asking our faculty observers to leave.  We explained that faculty observers are permitted by law, as we have an established practice of having faculty observers, including at close to 90% of negotiation sessions dating back to 2020-21.  Thus, the PERB case cited by the District actually supports our position, not the District’s.  After multiple caucuses and verbally saying they disagreed with our legal position, the District proposed a written ground rule regarding observers that allows “SMCCCD employees” and Board of Trustees members to attend negotiations.  AFT did not have time to present a counter proposal on ground rules, but the faculty observers in attendance were present for the entire negotiation session.

 

Class Assignment for Full Time Faculty (Article 26)

The District accepted our wording which clarifies that faculty have 2 complete academic years to make up an underload.  The District struck out proposed changes that would have required the District, after a class cancellation, to reassign full time faculty to FSAs in which they typically teach, and to obtain agreement from the faculty member for an assignment for which they meet minimum qualifications.  AFT countered by re-inserting the language regarding FSAs in which faculty typically teach and obtaining agreement for minimum qualification assignments.

 

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

The District provided a counteroffer on AFT’s initial proposal that struck out and changed a large portion of the proposal.  Notable aspects of the District’s counter included:

  • Narrowing the scope from “Dual Enrollment” (“DE”) to “College and Career Access Pathways (“CCAP”) Partnerships”
  • Removing language providing faculty with a right of refusal for a DE assignment
  • Changing language that would have provided faculty with a right to refuse to perform duties outside of Appendix D, and replacing it with language providing that faculty duties would be generally the same as those in Appendix D
  • Removed language requiring compensation for extra commuting time between two worksites, and language requiring District-provided transport; leaving only IRS rates for mileage reimbursement

 

AFT did not provide a counter during the Feb. 28th negotiation.

 

Leaves (Article 11)

AFT proposed a counter to the District’s initial proposal on Article 11, Leaves.  AFT proposed: one month of District-paid parental leave before any other types of leave or accrued sick days are used; providing all faculty (both FT and PT) with five sick days per semester; expanding the standard Bereavement Leave to include more in-laws and people the employee regards as family; increasing Personal Necessity Leave to ten days from seven; removing the District’s proposed five-days-per-calendar-year restriction on the usage of sick days for Family Illness Leave; and clarifying faculty rights regarding Reproductive Loss Leave.  The District did not present a counteroffer to this proposal on Feb. 28th.

 

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

AFT proposed adding language to Article 25 that would require the District to take timely action to provide the employee with the status of the request for accommodation within 10 working days, and included language protecting an employee from negative consequences, such as being forced to use accumulated sick hours,  should they be unable to perform work duties due to a lack of accommodation.  The District countered by removing the above-referenced language.  AFT did not have an opportunity to counter on Feb. 28th.

 

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

AFT proposed changes to clarify timelines regarding bringing Level I and II grievances; proposed changing Level III grievances from “advisory” arbitration to binding arbitration; and proposed that if the District fails to respond to a grievance in a timely fashion, the grievance shall be resolved in favor of the grievant.

 

In Solidarity,
Chet Lexvold
Executive Director, AFT 1493
lexvold@aft1493.org