|
|
 Justice Denied
As reported in CFA Headlines:
Updated Jan. 19, 2005
|
• 1-19-05: Holding back evidence
• 1-11-05: Where’s the accountability?
• 12-7-04: Relitigating settled arbitrations
• 11-30-04: CFA wins back pay in YRO case
• 11-23-04: Trustees hear CFA’s case
|
|
|
|
Jan. 19, 2005
‘JUSTICE DENIED’: HOLDING BACK EVIDENCE
Sometimes, to CFA representation staff, it seems as if pulling teeth would be easier than getting the necessary evidence to move forward on a grievance between a CSU faculty member and the university administration.
In fact, according to CFA Representation Specialist Gerry Daley, he has had to file an additional grievance in some cases just to obtain evidence.
“It’s like litigating in the dark,” Daley said. “It’s a violation of due process, the contract and HEERA.”
A discipline case he worked on provides a good example of the hoops though which CFA staff must jump to obtain evidence. In order to obtain a copy of a faculty member’s personnel action file for the case, he had to subpoena a CSU administrator and file an unfair labor practice charge at PERB. The CSU attorney moved (unsuccessfully) to quash the arbitrator’s subpoena, while simultaneously arguing that PERB should not issue a complaint because CFA could get the information through an arbitration subpoena. (Once CSU lost its evidentiary arguments at PERB and in arbitration and had to fork over the info, it withdrew the discipline.)
Not only did this delay the case for six months, it cost the CSU extra money that could otherwise have been used for instruction.
“In my brief time here, I have had struggles on this issue in a number of cases,” Daley said. “It can vary depending on which of the CSU’s lawyers is handling the case, but there is an overall approach coming out of the Chancellor’s Office that says: hide the ball and spring surprises on the other side at the hearing.”
During upcoming collective bargaining for a Unit 3 successor contract, CFA will look for ways to require the CSU administration to hand over necessary evidence for grievances in a timely manner and stop wasting precious CSU dollars on litigation.
“They hope to wear you down,” Daley continued. “We don’t wear down, but we’re trying to find ways to fight back that will raise the stakes and raise the temperature on them.”
|
|
Jan. 11, 2005
‘JUSTICE DENIED’: WHERE’S THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
CFA representatives have reported the difficulty with holding CSU management accountable for poor decisions, especially in regards to the handling of faculty grievances.
According to CFA Director of Representation Ed Purcell, it seems there’s nearly a reward system for CSU administrators who make bad decisions. Purcell said in some cases administrators who ignore faculty members’ rights end up getting promoted for other reasons. “They might even be rewarded for this,” he said.
This has resulted in costly, lengthy arbitration and re-litigation. In the Year-Round Operations arbitration, for example, the CSU spent $6 million and lost the case.
In the YRO case, CSU administrators waited to compensate faculty members their proper pay for the summer sessions they taught instead of paying them when the budget was good. Now the CSU must pay the money during bad budget years.
Sonoma State, for instance, intends to shut down the 2005 summer session to pay its faculty their lost wages. And because of this the faculty will not have extra classes to teach, meaning less income, and the students will have fewer classes to take, meaning it could take them longer to graduate.
Had the CSU administrators paid the faculty their correct salary and benefits instead of shorting them in the first place, or, had they compensated the faculty members in a timely manner following the 2003 arbitration, this would have never been a financial problem.
“The money that should have been used to run those summer sessions has to go to pay the past debt,” said Purcell. “It’s bad management, but they’re not going to hold the administrator [who made the decision] accountable.
“It filters right down to faculty and an impact on students as precious funds are squandered.”
 |
|
Dec. 7, 2004
‘JUSTICE DENIED’ CAMIGN CONTINUES: RE-LITIGATING SETTLED ARBITRATIONS CAUSES BACKLOG
In trying to streamline the grievance process between faculty members and the CSU administration, CFA is raising specific examples to show how current practices delay efficient and timely arbitration settlements.
One persistent aspect of the problem is “re-litigation.” This means the administration ignores decisions in previous arbitrations and commits the same infraction under the contract again and again often involving different faculty members on different campuses. Then the administration takes the case, once again, all the way to arbitration.
CFA Director of Representation Ed Purcell notes that the CSU administration’s practice of rehashing settled issues clogs the grievance process, wastes money and time, and brings attention to the pressing need to establish finality in the process.
Re-litigation has begun to annoy the arbitrators assigned to the cases, as well. An arbitrator for a case that had been relitigated three times, expressed his frustration stating in an award document, “A fundamental objective of grievance arbitration is to provide a definite terminal point, a resolution of rights issues that is final and binding on both parties. Finality is vital to stability in the administration of the collective agreement.”
|
|
|
Nov. 30, 2004
JUSTICE AT LAST: CFA WINS BACK PAY FOR YRO FACULTY
The CSU administration will begin paying some of the money owed to faculty members under the terms of the YRO arbitration ruling, which CFA won in September 2003.
CFA’s victory in the arbitration required the CSU administration to agree to compensate faculty members who received less pay and benefits during 2001 to 2003 summer sessions. Though the arbitration was settled more than a year ago, the CSU administration only now has begun to act on fulfilling its obligation to pay a total of $6.5 million mandated by the decision.
“They have made the commitment to pay the faculty,” said CFA President John Travis. “How fast they can do it remains to be seen.”
While Travis hopes the hundreds of faculty members who qualify for settlement money will receive their checks next semester, he warned that the CSU administration may turn this into a blame game, accusing CFA of adding to the university’s fiscal problems by forcing the CSU to pay faculty members their lost wages.
But, Travis said, this would have not been a problem had the CSU paid the faculty when the arbitration was first decided, or had paid the faculty the correct salary and benefits in the first place.
“This was a mistake that was made by the administration,” Travis said. “Now they’re going to have to make up for it.”
|
|
Nov. 23, 2004
JUSTICE DENIED: TRUSTEES MAY BE RECEPTIVE TO FIXING REPRESENTATION CRISIS
CFA made a presentation to the CSU Board of Trustees last week describing the obstacles that impede and delay the grievance process between CSU employees and the administration.
During the presentation, CFA listed examples of how the CSU administration delays resolution of grievances — especially when it involves arbitration. CFA hopes this will begin a dialogue to fix the problem.
“This is clearly the beginning of bargaining,” said Rene Castro, CFA’s organizing director in Southern California who addressed the Trustees with Representation Specialist Gerry Daley. “We need to work with the Trustees between now and the beginning of bargaining so they understand the information we provide.”
Castro said the Trustees appeared receptive to CFA’s presentation and, given that the CSU loses more than half its arbitrations, he said it would be in the administration’s best interests to fix the problem, which would save a lot of money in the long term.
“Part of coming to a resolution will depend on the Trustees’ willingness to understand the issue, so they can make up their own minds instead of being influenced by the CSU administration,” Castro said.
The CFA Bargaining Team hopes to improve the contract’s grievance and arbitration clauses during contract negotiations next year. CFA will continue to publicize this issue until the grievance process is made more efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
