This is Part 4 of my Union Reminiscences series. Click to see Union Reminiscences-1 The Beginning of Collective Bargaining in my College District in California, Union Reminiscences-2 Winning the Collective Bargaining Representation Election, and Union Reminiscences-3 Negotiations and Unfair Labor Practice Charges.
The Union had a large negotiating team, made up of representatives of various parts of the college faculty. We had put together a complete contract proposal, and were able to get the District to use our document for discussions. (I think it's because ours was in better shape, but time has faded the memories. As an aside, my memory of exact dates isn't really so good, but I previously went through all the flyers I had saved over the years so I could do an interview about this collective bargaining history, and although I gave the flyers to the college library archives, I kept my notes, which I have been using to tweak my memory for this series.)
In previous parts, I mentioned how the Community College District was afraid of collective bargaining at first. They hired an outside contract employee to be chief negotiator, and the Union used a CFT organizer as chief negotiator. While the Union's negotiator was always available for bargaining sessions, the District's negotiator was not.
The negotiations went something like this: We (both sides together) would select a topic to discuss. The District would say which, if any, parts were acceptable, and which, if any, they wanted to change. If we agreed on some sections, the chief negotiators would initial them and they would be considered finished. After you signed off on something, you couldn't change your mind unless the other side agreed, or you would have been negotiating in bad faith. Because of this, both sides were careful of what they agreed to. Either side could call for a caucus of its own bargaining team members to discuss whether or not to accept the changes offered by the other side, or to offer other changes. After the negotiating session, I would go back to the Union office and would type out the new articles, including what had been agreed to and what we wanted to suggest for the next session. (It wasn't really the Union President's official job to do this, but since I typed fast (remember, no computers) and only I could read my handwriting, that's how it went!)
As mentioned in Part 3, although negotiations had begun in September, 1978, the District's negotiator had only attended 3 out of 15 scheduled sessions, and the District had canceled four of them, so by January, 1979, not much had been accomplished. After a lot of complaining and pushing, negotiations stepped up a bit and Article I, Bargaining Unit, Recognition and Duration, was tentatively agreed to and initialed.
The next article was "Personnel Files" and although you would think that might be an easy one to agree to, neither side trusted the other. We had to define what was in the personnel file, and had to include personnel items that were kept in other places, such as work records that were kept on file cards. The District wanted to be held harmless if there was any loss or damage if the faculty member brought along a Union representative. (No, I don't remember what kind of loss or damage the District was thinking of, but since we didn't think it would be a problem we agreed to the language.)
There were sections about notification when something was put in the file, ways to request a deletion or correction of something in the file, and the right to get a copy. The Union wanted to be able to have its members see their personnel records and bring a representative along. The District agreed, but said the faculty member had to give written notice. The District also insisted that a management employee be present to make sure nothing was added or taken away. The Union insisted that the information should be confidential, and no district employee should be able to overhear what the faculty member and his or her representative might be discussing. When Article 11, Personnel Files was signed off in February, Section 11.3.2 stated:
All reviews shall be done in the presence of a management employee or designee who shall be positioned in a manner ensuring confidentiality to the parties and security of the file.
Negotiations were going slowly, with only two articles agreed to in five months of bargaining. The CFT sent in another negotiator to help the Union, and Rudy replaced Lloyd. Two months later, in May, the Union called an all faculty meeting as summer was approaching and there was no agreement on many important issues. The Faculty rejected the District's latest contract offer, and passed a resolution directing the Union's bargaining team to return to the table with the authorization to declare impasse, if necessary, and with further authorization to call another all-faculty meeting in September.
Summer school was cancelled, and June was not off to an auspicious start, as the Chancellor presented to the Governing Board a resolution that instructors be allowed to use District facilities on a volunteer basis during the summer. We were the only community college in the area that had canceled summer school, and as Union president, I spoke at the Board meeting against the "ill-conceived attempt to use the concern of the faculty for their students as an excuse to get more work out of them for nothing." Also in June, the Chanceller asked for a one-year extension of the Emergency Declaration passed the previous summer. PERB still had not ruled on our unfair labor practice charge yet, but had just ruled in favor of the Union in a similar case. We told the Board we would file another unfair labor practice charge if they continued the emergency. The resolution was amended to expire in September, and passed 4 to 3.
The next in this series will be "Union Reminiscences Part 5-Impasse, Mediation, Fact-Finding and a Strike Threat."