Advocacy Report - Winter 2012

by Martin Kaplan

All Counts of Grievance Denied by Arbitrator

In mid-January, the arbitrator gave her final decision denying all of the Association’s assertions made in a grievance filed on behalf of three members of the math department.  All of these part-time instructors had worked at the college for a minimum of five years, without incident.  Yet, the college administration saw fit to remove them and not assign them further courses even though, by all reports, they had been doing fine work.

Some of the tortured arguments made by the arbitrator in arriving at her decision involved the following:

1. One issue was “Did the College impose de-facto caps in violation of Article 16C?”  Our previous contract specifically states in Article 16C that “De-facto teaching caps implemented at the department level will be subject to the grievance procedure.”   Yet, in this case limitations were placed on the number of classes assigned to the grievants.  The arbitrator concluded that without clear evidence that an instructor requests a specific number of classes then the college cannot be considered to have imposed de-facto caps. 
   .
2. Second, “Did the College violate Article 12A when it terminated…(two of the grievants)?”  Article 12 states that no employee shall be terminated without just cause during an academic term in which that employee has an assignment.  In the present case, the terminations were accomplished “after” the completion of a term.  In other words, since the term was completed and “there is no expectation of continued employment” thus, there is nothing that would “give rise to due process rights.”  In plain language, the termination did not take place during the term of employment, therefore the College does not need a reason to terminate an instructor.
   .
3. Lastly, the question arose as to the effect of Article 16A, Seniority, on making class assignments.  The arbitrator concluded that the language of the contract “clearly show that assignment of classes should be by level and date of hire.”  A few sentences later the same arbitrator says “…there is ambiguity as to what was the intent of the parties.”  From clarity to ambiguity in a few sentences.  In addition, the arbitrator found that implementation of the seniority provisions was not “consistent throughout the college.”  In the math department seniority was the basis for assigning courses “unless one of the criteria factors as determined by the Chair caused a less senior teacher to be assigned the class.”  After continuing her contortions, the criterion, “the need of the Department trumped seniority” trumped seniority.

As I read this opinion I have come to the conclusion that the Association must do the following:

1. In the next collective bargaining cycle we have to get rid of the damaging phrase, “needs of the program” in any new contract.  With it in place any Department Chair merely has to invoke it to terminate any part-timer or limit the number of course assignments he or she may have.
   .
2. We must bargain for seniority.  The College successfully removed that word from the new contract that was just approved.  While on the one hand the “College acknowledges the significance of past service by part-time faculty as an important criterion in making teaching assignments” we have to rely on the magnanimity of the administration in doling out assignments.  That situation should not be left to stand.
   .
3. The Association should take a more forceful approach in bargaining to protect and expand the rights of part-time faculty.
   .
4. Finally, members of the Association must take an active role in supporting our goals.  Come to meetings, join committees and not leave the work of the Association to a few dedicated souls.  Without you on our side the Administration will be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want.