Salary Restoration Unfair Labor Practice Update

Just before the Nov 8 election, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard your union’s Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) alleging bad faith bargaining in your salary restoration negotiations. Your union presented a convincing case that CCSF administrators were refusing to bargain in good faith over restoring your salaries, and the administration frankly failed to take the proceedings seriously.

The hearing ran over the course of 6 days. AFT’s Executive Director, Alayna Fredricks, along with bargaining team member and AFT Treasurer Clare Heimer testified on behalf of AFT. Former Deputy Chancellor, Dianna Gonzalez was also subpoenaed by AFT as a witness. Clara Starr, Lidia Jenkins, John al-Amin, Tom Boegel, and David Martin all testified for the District.

The District presented a scattershot case with contradictory testimony and witnesses who were uncooperative and/or had no knowledge of the events that transpired in bargaining. Only one District witness had even attended more than a few of the bargaining sessions and she largely couldn’t recall any details, nor could she demonstrate any grasp of the District’s budget. John al-Amin was relied upon to testify about the budget and was unable to answer basic questions, offered contradictory testimony, and was so uncooperative he had to be ordered repeatedly by the ALJ to answer the actual questions that were being asked. Sound familiar?

Conversely, the AFT team was able to put forward a strong case for how the District bargained in bad faith, a clear and credible explanation of the District’s finances, and successfully elicit testimony from Dianna Gonzalez that, in her own estimation, she was not empowered at that time to bargain in good faith.

While it was largely validating to hear the testimony in this case, the next steps in the process remind us why Unfair Labor Practices are only one tool for enforcing your contract and your rights. Further information or briefings for the case are not due until February, and only after those have been submitted can the ALJ issue a finding–a process that will take several more weeks.

In the meantime, there’s work to do to ensure that the District bargains in good faith. It is clear that the administration would rather pay lawyers to make expensive and flawed legal arguments than simply sit down and directly resolve issues with your faculty representatives–a practice that makes for a stronger college while preserving resources in service of students, not lawyers.

What happens at the bargaining table is shaped by everything that happens away from the bargaining table. You have already taken one major step in changing your bargaining conditions by replacing callous incumbent trustees with three trustees who ran on a student, community, and worker centered vision. But holding this administration accountable will take all of us working together right now for our shared vision of the working and learning environment City College is meant to be.

Your union has an internal organizing team that is here to facilitate and support your efforts to work together to create the college you and your students deserve. Join this effort and call or email a member of your team today.

Alan D’Souza: (415) 203-5698, adsouz@aft2121.org
Robin Pugh: (415) 577- 2288, rpugh@aft2121.org
Spencer Jackson: (323) 943- 0475, sjackson@aft2121.org

A Note from the Grievance Desk: Spring Assignments

Some administrators are trying to enforce arbitrary and made-up rules for Spring assignments, and the guidance has changed multiple times. I’m writing this to try to clear up some confusion, in hopes that fewer of these assignments end up in grievance.

• Temporary remote is allowed for Spring 2023. IOTL is not required. David Martin confirmed that on 9/28/22, and it replaces earlier instructions to the contrary. That means if your chair agrees that remote work is appropriate for the particular assignment, you do not need an accommodation to work remotely. They can just assign you. For instance, if the District can’t provide an appropriate facility with working heat, we would expect remote work.

• You can also apply for an accommodation through HR to work remotely. Caretaking *is* a valid reason for such an accommodation. (Specifically mentioned in the negotiated leaves agreement, 10/18/22)

• At the same time, we need in-person classes and services in order to be accessible and serve our students appropriately. The department may say a particular assignment must be in-person, or make sure there are enough in-person offerings overall. This is legitimate and necessary to serve our students. These requirements go with the assignments NOT with the particular faculty member.

• The District cannot apply such rules to individual faculty or groups of faculty, separate from the particular assignments. For example, they cannot arbitrarily say “All faculty must work at least 50% in person” or “all counselors must work exactly 2 days in person.” That would be adding an extra assignment criteria to article 13. If the District wants to make such a rule they need to propose it in contract negotiations and bargain over it.

• Academic Senate has changed the policy about who is qualified to teach IOTL classes. Starting Spring 2023, someone who is fully-IOTL certified can develop and teach other online classes, without needing a new IOTL training process. The Senate resolution is here.  

Remember pre-COVID, when many of us were being pressured to shift our classes to online? Now many of the exact same faculty are being pressured to *stop* using online. As grievance officer, I have a personal plea to make to CCSF administration: Please, please, stop making arbitrary rules. We understand you have ideas, things you want to accomplish. We want to hear those ideas. But please resist the temptation to turn your ideas into blanket rules that we must follow. You’ll just have to change the rules in another semester or two, as conditions change. Respect the expertise of the faculty who are doing the work.

— Malaika Finkelstein, AFT 2121 Grievance Officer