Negotiations Report #8

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

April 15, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our seventh negotiation session on April 11th:

This was a shorter (3-hour negotiation) session, and we presented six counteroffers, while the District presented one new proposal.

We will present multiple new and important proposals in the next couple of negotiation sessions, so if you’ve been waiting to observe, I highly recommend that you:

You can also:

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Teeka James, Steven Lehigh, Donna McCabe, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Elsa Torres, Sara Dykes, and Nadia Biglari.

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, Melissa Moreno, David Feune, Aaron McVean.

 

Leaves (Article 11)

In our March 25th Bargaining 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.  However, the District subsequently claimed that was an “oversight,” and offered 8 days of Personal Necessity Leave on March 28th, 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.

In the April 11th bargaining session, we again pointed out the District’s last proposal was regressive, and re-proposed 10 days of Personal Necessity Leave (including the ability to use 5 of 10 days without prior authorization).

We also proposed 20 paid workdays for Parental Leave after the District did not accept our proposal of one month paid Parental Leave last session.

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

We presented our third counter proposal.  After pointing out that we have made multiple attempts to compromise on this article, Chief Negotiator Monica Malamud made the case for why binding arbitration at Level IV is not only important to our members, but is the logical next step after our successful three-year pilot program of binding arbitration in our current contract.  When negotiating the pilot program, the District had expressed fears that we would be going through many arbitrations, and that it would get costly.  However, there has only been one grievance brought to arbitration in the last three years, proving that those fears were unfounded.  So the pilot program has been a success, and after a successful pilot, the natural next step is to make binding arbitration a permanent feature of our grievance procedure.

Furthermore, binding arbitration in grievances is the standard for union contracts between faculty and community colleges in the Bay Area (and California broadly), as it is the only available path to have an objective, neutral person decide a grievance.

Article 19 (Part-Time Employment)

We presented our first counter on Article 19, Part-Time employment.  We proposed that HR will forward updated copies of seniority lists to AFT by the date of fall and spring first census (which we would then post on our website to share with you).

Regarding 19.2.4 – the assignment expectation of part-time faculty – we proposed that the District make reasonable efforts to assign the “highest load offered in the previous three terms.”  We also proposed that in 19.2.7, faculty be notified of a proposed assignment at least three working days prior to publication of the class schedule.

We rejected the District’s proposals that would substantially change the meaning of 19.1.3, as the District had proposed several additional sections that would cause removal from the seniority list, including: “sustained complaints” concerning harassment or discrimination; conduct under Education Code 87732; failure to turn in timely reports of attendance and grades; and/or declining assignments for two consecutive semesters.

We made a minor proposal for 19.2.1 that would require the District to consider a faculty member’s experience and qualifications be “for a particular assignment,” and struck out redundant language in 19.2.2 regarding qualifications because 19.2.2 is supposed to be about program need, not employee qualifications.

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

The District had rejected our last proposal requiring the District to notify employees of the status of their accommodation request within 10 working days, reasoning that this affirmative duty to notify an employee every 10 days was unreasonable.  In response, we proposed that when an employee inquires about the status of their accommodation request, the District is required to respond within 10 working days.  We also proposed that while waiting for accommodation request to be resolved, an employee unable to perform their duties, shall not be required to use sick leave or be penalized (for example, in performance evaluations or rehire rights).

Ground Rules

We presented our fifth (yes, fifth) counter on Ground Rules, and it seems noteworthy that we have somehow managed to hold seven negotiation sessions without having any ground rules in place, let alone the elaborate set of ground rules the District insisted we negotiate at the outset.  We again proposed that SMCCCD employees can continue to attend as observers consistent with our established practice, and pointed out that at one point, the District had proposed that both employees and the Board of Trustees be allowed to attend negotiation sessions.  Therefore, we felt the District’s latest offer of not allowing any observers was a regressive proposal; the District did not agree, claiming that because they only offered to allow observers on a “non-precedential” basis, their latest proposal was not regressive.

Article 23, Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations

The District presented their first offer on Article 23, and they added some examples of instances where an employee may be placed on paid administrative leave, in addition to some other changes we will fully analyze as we prepare our counter for this Friday.  Expect more details in next week’s bargaining report.

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

We presented our second counter on this subject.  We proposed language that would require the District to first offer DE assignments to adjunct faculty who request a DE assignment under 19.2.7, and then to full-time faculty per 26.1.1.  We re-proposed that high school teachers who teach DE courses be evaluated according to SMCCCD evaluation procedures.  We also re-proposed that faculty who don’t drive / don’t own a car be provided with either District-provided transportation or reimbursement for alternative transportation.  Finally, we proposed that faculty be paid for commuting time and mileage in excess of a faculty member’s normal home-to-primary-worksite commute.

Retirement (Article 10)

The District did not present a counter to our offer on this article.

Professional “Leaves” – (Article 13)

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

The District did not present a counter to our offer on this article.

 

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