Negotiations Report #7

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

April 8, 2025

Reminder: our next AFT 1493 Membership meeting is Wednesday, April 9th, 2:30-4:30pm.  You can attend via Zoom or in-person at Skyline 5-134.

Some brief takeaways from our sixth negotiation session on March 28th:

The District’s Chief Negotiator said they went to the Board of Trustees regarding Ground Rules, and it is the position of the Board of Trustees that faculty observers should not be allowed at negotiation sessions.  This won’t change anything in practice – we will continue to operate under our established practice of having observers attend negotiations, but it is noteworthy that this stance is coming from the Board itself.  The Board doesn’t want you to join us at the negotiating table, and it’s worth asking: Why?

Two actions you can take in response:

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 and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Lori Slicton, Camille Kaslan, Teeka James, Rachel Cunningham, Jacquie Escobar, Elsa Torres, Elna Murcia-Cordoba, and Amanda Barden.

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, Joe Morello, David Feune, Gerardo Ramirez.

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

We presented our second counter proposal that includes 4 grievance levels, and accepted the District’s language making Level III Mediation.  We re-proposed making binding arbitration Level IV.  Binding arbitration is the standard in grievance procedure for union contracts in the Bay Area and California more broadly, as it is the only available path to have an objective, neutral person decide a grievance.

The District presented a counter that again removed binding arbitration and made it “advisory” arbitration that can be overturned / ignored by the Board of Trustees at Level V.  The District also continues to reject our proposal that if the District fails to timely act at any level, then the grievance would be resolved in favor of the grievant.

 

Retirement (Article 10)

We made our first proposal on Article 10, Retirement.  Because the amount for retiree health benefits has not been updated for decades, we proposed that the District pays $1000/month (increased from $450) for retiree health benefits until they qualify for Medicare Part B.  We also proposed that retirees can select a health plan to cover dependents, which wouldn’t increase the cost to the District, but would give retirees that option.

Article 19 (Part-Time Employment)

The District presented its first counter on Article 19, Part-Time employment.  They proposed that HR will forward copies of seniority lists to AFT after receiving copies from Division offices.  The District also brought back the language, “same or similar load as the previous semester“ in 19.2.4 to determine the assignment expectation of a part-time faculty.

The District made a proposal on section 19.1.3 that would substantially change the meaning of the section.  Currently, this section covers when a break in service would cause the removal of a PT faculty member’s name from the seniority list.  The District proposed several additional sections that would cause removal from the seniority list, including “sustained complaints” concerning harassment or discrimination, and conduct under Education Code 87732.  The District’s proposal said these “sustained complaints” would not be subject to the grievance process.  The District further proposed removal from the seniority list for failure to turn in timely reports of attendance and grades, and/or declining assignments for two consecutive semesters.  Finally, the District went back to current contract language for 19.2.6, 19.2.7, and 19.2.9.

Leaves (Article 11)

Last report, we shared that the District had accepted our proposal for 10 days of Personal Necessity Leave (an increase from 7 days), which allows employees to use sick leave for other personal necessities.  We based our most recent counter on their acceptance of this proposal.  However, the District now claims that this was an “oversight,” and offered 8 days of Personal Necessity Leave in this session, which may be regressive bargaining that violates federal and state labor law.  “Regressive bargaining” is when a party makes a subsequent proposal which is less advantageous to the other party than the preceding proposal.

The District did not accept AFT’s proposal for 1-month paid parental leave.

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

The District essentially accepted AFT’s proposed language requiring the District to identify a position on its website, with contact information, whom faculty can contact regarding accommodation requests.  Regarding our proposal to notify employees of the status of their accommodation request within 10 working days, the District continues to refuse to agree to this timeline.

Professional “Leaves” – (Article 13)

(We are proposing changing the title to “Leaves” from “Development”)

We presented our first offer on Article 13 for Professional Leaves, proposing to increase the funding of the program from 1% to 2%, and that 1st and 2nd year tenure-track faculty be eligible for leaves.

Ground Rules

As covered above, the Board of Trustees is taking the position that they do not want observers at negotiations, and the District made a proposal reflecting that position.

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

We did not have an opportunity to present a counter on this subject.

 

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