Negotiations Report #9

See All Negotiations Updates

April 22, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our eighth negotiation session on April 18th:

The District accepted our proposal (with some conditions) for including binding arbitration in our grievance procedure, which is significant and will result in a more fair and just process for our faculty.

We presented multiple new and important proposals on Friday, including on Workload, Compensation, and Benefits. It will be interesting to see the District’s counter proposals in the coming weeks on these issues, and you can see them first-hand by:

Signing up to join us at a future negotiation session! Our next negotiation is April 25th, 1:30 pm-5:30pm. Also:
Plan to join your colleagues to flex our collective power at the next Board of Trustees meeting on Wednesday, April 30th at 6pm.

You can also:

Sign up to join the Contract Action Team (CAT)
Email me to discuss how to get involved! lexvold@aft1493.org

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga, Althea Kippes. Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Rachel Cunningham, Jacquie Escobar, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Helena Almassy, Camille Kaslan, Kolo Wamba, Teeka James, Ritu Malhotra, Deborah Garfinkle, Sumathi Shankar, and Sara Dykes.

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

Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D)

We presented our first proposal on Article 6 and Appendix D. We proposed adding a new “Appendix D4” for Ancillary Work, to account for paid work that adjunct faculty may perform outside of their regular duties, and proposed including that in Article 6 under Faculty Duties. We proposed a new section 6.6 for Ancillary Duties for PT faculty, referencing CA Education Code providing adjunct faculty the right to perform professional ancillary duties without having units or hours counted toward their load, but said service would count toward eligibility for CalSTRS and benefits in Article 9. We also proposed that when returning from ancillary work to primary duties, PT faculty would retain their seniority and load rights from the last semester before they took on said ancillary work.

For Appendices D2 and D3, we proposed adding and clarifying the duties of both Counselors and Librarians (after working directly with both Counselors and Librarians to make these edits). For Counselors, we added an “A2” section for Personal Counselors specifically, and A3 now covers Professional Duties for counselors. We also proposed the new D4 for Ancillary Work, creating a non-exhaustive list of duties that should be treated as ancillary work.

Compensation (Article 8)

We made our first proposal, asking for salary increases of 8% in year 1 of the new contract, 7% in year 2, and 5% in year 3. Part of the justification for our salary increase ask is due to the District’s long-standing non-compliance with the 50% law- a status it has held for over a decade. SMCCCD is the District with the highest deficit in 50% law compliance in the State, with over $80 million in cumulative underfunding of the cost of classroom instruction over the past 10 years. These increases also aim to help faculty catch up with cost-of-living adjustments.

We proposed adding a reference to the law which bars the District from reclaiming overpayments without employee consent (if the District overpays you, they cannot just take that overpayment amount out of your next paycheck without your consent).

On section 8.8, we proposed renaming it to include part-time, summer, and FT overload pay under a new Schedule HC, aligning it with the regular salary schedule to accomplish the contractually agreed 85% parity goal between full- and part-time instructional faculty. This includes transitioning from hourly pay to load-based (FLC) pay to achieve equity for instructional part-time faculty. We created a spreadsheet to reflect this new salary schedule and sent it to the District in addition to our proposal on Article 8.

Other changes include updating substitute PT pay rates based on the new FLC pay schedule, and changing outdated language regarding large class pay to a tiered compensation model based on student enrollment exceeding class caps (1 hour for 5-20 over cap, 2 hours for 21-40, and 3 hours for 41-60). Additional proposals include 1.25 FLC for for multi-modal and multi-level classes, and compensation for PT faculty having a class canceled or bumped less than two weeks before the start of the semester (per Ed Code), and compensation for professional ancillary activities.

Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation (Appendix F )

Through the union survey that collected a broad input on lab FLCs in various disciplines and faculty experts from the Workload Article Committee, we made our first proposal on Appendix F, much of which attempts to achieve Lab/Lecture parity.

Lab Assignment Schedule: for the Sciences, we proposed adding Engineering, Earth, and Social Sciences, plus Accounting, and making labs 1.0 FLC per hour. We added Photography and Digital Media to the Art and Music lab line, and made these labs 1.0 FLC/hour. For the Physical Education line, we proposed 1.0 FLC/hour. For Cosmetology, .80 FLC/hour. For “Allied Health” (currently the “Radiologic Technology” line), we proposed 1.0 FLC/hour for both Lab and Clinic. For Automotive, .75 FLC/hour.

We also made a proposal to address the workload of the disciplines heavily impacted by AB1705. For the Lecture Assignment Schedule for each English Composition class, we proposed 26 student maximum at census, and 1.25 FLCs per hour, removing the four-composition class bundle in the current contract. For Math (Calculus I and II), we proposed 26 student max at census, and 1.00 FLCs per hour.

Benefits (Article 9)

We made our first proposal on Article 9, and proposed that the District covers 100% of premiums for all CalPERS healthcare options. We proposed increasing the max for dental coverage from $2,000 to $7,500. We also essentially proposed incorporating our current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for part-time healthcare into this article so that all faculty benefits are in the same article and to make it a permanent feature of our contract. We added language to specify that ancillary work shall count toward PT healthcare eligibility.

Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations (Article 23)

We presented our first counter proposal on Article 23, and did not accept the District’s proposed addition of instances where an employee would automatically be placed on paid administrative leave (for allegations of harassment and/or discrimination).

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

The District presented their fourth counter proposal. The District largely accepted our proposal to have binding arbitration at Level IV, with conditions that mirror the binding arbitration pilot program in our current contract, namely, that binding arb is not available for the tenure review process or for topics under Article 19.2 (Assignment and Retention for part-time faculty), although advisory arbitration would be available for the latter. The District’s proposal also mirrored the pilot program in that it would cap the number of binding arbitrations per fiscal year at three (we brought one grievance to arbitration during the entire three-year pilot program).

As we have explained in previous reports, 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.

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

The District’s fourth counter accepted our proposal that when an employee inquires about the status of their accommodation request, the District is required to respond within 10 working days. The District did not accept our proposal that while waiting for an accommodation request to be resolved, an employee unable to perform their duties would not be required to use sick leave or be penalized (for example, in performance evaluations or rehire rights).

Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

(We initially proposed changing the title to “Leaves” from “Development.”)

The District presented their first counter to our first proposal on this article, and proposed adjusting our proposed name of “Professional Leaves” to the “Professional Development Leave Program.” Our proposal and current contract language had three basic classifications of leaves: short-term, long-term, and extended. The District proposed 2 classifications: short-term (less than a full semester) and long-term (a full semester up to an academic year). The District did not accept our proposal to increase the level of funding from 1% to 2% of the District budget for tenured and third- and fourth-year tenure-track faculty. For long-term leaves, the District proposed a requirement that faculty submit a report and present to the Board of Trustees on their long-term leave project. The District proposed excluding first and second year tenure-track faculty from professional development funding eligibility in 13.10.3.