Power Source-8-03

August 2003

GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING
Discussion and Ratification Vote
Tentative Agreement Concerning Hours of Employment

THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 4th , 2003

Santa Rosa Campus
Plover Library, Room 1
12-1pm, 5-6pm

Petaluma Campus
Mahoney Library, Room 154
12-1pm

Windsor Safety Training Center
12-1pm

For a discussion of this topic and a copy of the Tentative Agreement see the Stewards' Corner section of this newsletter.

CONTRACT NEGOTIATION UPDATE
Shirley Davis
SEIU/SRJC Negotiation Team/CEC

The District and SEIU are currently at impasse with respect to contract negotiations. The first step of the impasse process is mediation. The SEIU/SRJC and District Negotiation Teams met with the mediator all day on August 14th. This first session was primarily a history gathering and understanding of what has transpired from our numerous meetings. To gain a greater understanding, the mediator had us review the proposals, state our positions, and discuss any additional facts, concerns, or interests.
Our next meeting is scheduled for September 15. We will keep you updated on this process.

LAY-OFF RUMOR SQUELCHING
Douglas J. Kuula
Communications Officer/CEC

Recently, several unit members shared with the CEC that their managers were indicating there would absolutely be lay-offs of classified staff. The CEC discussed the best way to approach this issue with management and it was decided that the CEC President would discuss the matter directly with Dr. Agrella. Dr. Agrella was very concerned to hear this and promptly issued an email to managers indicating that lay-offs are not imminent and managers should not be telling their classified staff otherwise. Great work by the unit members, the CEC, and Dr. Agrella!

CLASSIFICATION REVIEW REPORT
Jessica Galvin
Classification Review Committee/CEC

The three classifications chosen for review by SEIU are the Bookstore Family, the Custodial Technicians and the Administrative Assistants Family. Due to a reorganization of the Bookstore, those positions were studied earlier and have already gone before the Board of Trustees for approval.
The committee has been very busy studying all submitted PDQ's for the Custodial Technicians and the Administrative Assistants. There are a total of 87 classified staff members who are being reviewed at this time. For those individuals who chose not to submit a PDQ, the committee used their previously submitted PDQ. I am happy to report that we have been able to keep to our proposed timelines with only a few individuals needing an extension. The committee is grateful to all of you who have taken the time to complete and submit your paperwork within the projected dates.
By now, all those people being reviewed should have received their updated job descriptions and responded via the enclosed sheet that was in your packets as to whether your job description is accurate and if you agree with your placement within that classification. The new job descriptions have been graded and the recommendations are now going to be given to the negotiation teams by August 30th 2003. It is up to the negotiations teams to discuss implementation.
Those individuals who feel that they have been improperly assigned to their recommended classification will have the opportunity to appeal at a date yet to be determined. The appeal committee will be made up of Karen Furukawa, Sabrina Meyers, Jessica Galvin and a designated representative of SEIU local 707- hopefully Michael Allen. People will be notified as to when their appointment is for their appeal- it will be after August 30th. The appeal process will entail a 10-minute meeting where the employee will have an opportunity to state their argument for their proposed placement within a different classification than the committee recommended. If there are any questions or concerns feel free to call Jessica Galvin ext.1882

STEWARDS' CORNER
Ann Samson
Steward/CEC

Hours of Employment
As you all know, we have an ongoing grievance regarding the District's practice related to Article 6.7 in scheduling full-time classified employees' work hours and days outside the core hours of Mondays through Fridays, 8am to 5pm; this grievance progressed to arbitration, which resulted in a decision in SEIU's favor but was rejected by the Board; subsequently SEIU filed suit in Sonoma County Superior Court to compel the District's compliance.
To review the issues, while SEIU recognizes the District's desire for flexibility and growth and is not surprised when the District feels the need to schedule full-time employees to cover hours that begin earlier and end later than the core hours, it holds that the District may not do so unilaterally. What was under dispute was whether the District has the obligation to meet and confer with SEIU in such cases.
In June, the District invited SEIU to participate in mediation in an attempt to resolve this dispute outside of court. Michael Allen, our General Manager; Anne Yen, the attorney who has represented us at arbitration and in the suit; and I spent a very long day with a mediator and the District's attorney; Karen Furukawa, the Director of Human Resources; and Ron Root, Vice President of Business Services. At the end of that day, we developed a Tentative Agreement that was satisfactory to both sides. The text of that agreement is reproduced further in this column and can be found on SEIU's webpage, www.santarosa.edu/seiu. On September 4, we will hold general membership meetings at all three campuses to discuss this agreement and to decide whether to ratify it. Our attorneys, the stewards, and the Classified Executive Council have thoroughly discussed and examined it and recommend it to the membership for ratification.
Here are the most frequently asked questions (FAQ) and concerns regarding this tentative agreement (TA) and answers, paraphrased from Michael Allen's explanations:

FAQ #1: Does this TA mean my schedule can be changed without my agreement?
A #1: This TA clearly applies to new and vacant positions; it does not supersede the existing language of Article 6.

FAQ #2: But the initial paragraph of the TA says the parties will negotiate any change for existing employees.
A #2: Yes; for the first time, the District agrees to meet and confer with SEIU if it proposes a change in schedule for an existing employee. This may not seem to be a big deal, but it is what we have been asking for since the very first grievance filed in October of 1999.

FAQ #3: What if we ratify and the Board rejects?
A #3: Then we don't have an agreement. We can proceed to Fact Finding or go forward with our suit. Since the District requested mediation and its attorney recommends the TA, it seems unlikely that the Board would reject. We understand the Board will consider this TA at its September meeting.

FAQ #4: Can we change anything about the TA if we agree with some of it but not all of it?
A #4: We would need to go back through mediation and negotiate any change to the TA. The SEIU leadership recommends accepting the TA as it is currently worded.

FAQ #5: If the District wants to schedule either a new or existing positions to days or hours outside the core hours, what is the negotiation (or meet-and-confer) process?
A #5: This is what we envision:

The District gives SEIU 30 days' notice of its intent to schedule such hours.
SEIU representatives (probably a steward and the field representative and possibly a member of the negotiations team) meet with the affected employees. That is, if a position is vacant and the District wants to change hours or days, the employees in the work area will be affected because they will have a co-worker who will not be working alongside them but at different days or times. This SEIU team will determine, with the affected employees, what the workload is likely to be, both for the new employee and the existing employees.
They will identify which tasks can be accomplished and which will have to be shifted, modified or left undone.
They will meet with the District's representatives (probably the Director of HR and the supervisor of the department or program seeking the change) and come to agreement about the workload of all affected employees-existing and new.
They will sign this agreement.
Recruitment or changed schedule may then begin.
Notice the term in Item 3 of the TA "what can be reasonably expected during a normal workday". This is an entirely new concept in our relationship with the District.

FAQ #6: What if the District doesn't really negotiate or we are otherwise unsuccessful in this negotiation?
A #6: Both sides are required by PERB to honestly negotiate; failing to do so is a violation of the law. Under this TA, there are no time limits on negotiation; we keep meeting and conferring until we get an agreement. Just as the District can assume that SEIU is bargaining in good faith, we assume that the District is doing so.

FAQ #7: But the TA says we can't grieve? Aren't we giving away our rights?
A #7: Under this TA, the only thing we cannot grieve is the District's decision to modify an employee's shift from the core hours. We retain the right to grieve any violation of the process of establishing the modified shift.

FAQ #8: So, why is this TA a good thing for us? We won the arbitration and have a strong enough case to bring suit; why settle?
A #8: True, the arbitrator decided in our favor. We feel we have a strong case, or the suit would never have been filed; however, a civil suit can take as long as five years to come to conclusion. We have business to do in the meantime. A number of our employees are working 11am to 8pm shifts, without benefit of negotiation; the CSOs are frozen in their shifts and cannot negotiate a change, etc. Here is what we will accomplish by ratifying this TA:

Agreement that negotiation is an integral part of the scheduling process; the District may not unilaterally alter the work schedule of any classified position, vacant or occupied;
Establishment of the concept of a "normal workday";
A 5% hourly premium for employees working outside core hours;
Dismissal of the lawsuit, which saves both the District and SEIU time and money while accomplishing its goals.

Tentative Agreement "Side Letter" Hours of Employment
This Side Letter will be read as a supplement to the Agreement, but in the event of any conflict between the Side Letter and the Agreement, this Side Letter will take precedence. The provisions of this Side Letter shall apply to new positions and vacancies, and shall not apply to existing employees. The parties agree to meet and negotiate in good faith to establish rules governing deviations from core hours in the case of existing employees.

The District will provide as much notice as is reasonably possible, but not less than thirty working days notice to SEIU of a proposed deviation from the core hours specified in the Agreement.
Upon request by SEIU, the District agrees to negotiate the effects of the deviation from core hours above on the working conditions of those employees who will be working the revised schedule as well as those whose work schedules have not been changed in the same work unit.
In deviating from core hours of employment, it is not the District's intent to cause increases in the workload of individual employees beyond what can be reasonable expected during a normal workday.
A 5% hourly premium will be applied for hours worked other than Monday-Friday, 8am to 5pm, except for one-half hour swings either before or after core hours, and except as provided in Article 6.18.4.
The requirements contained in the Side Letter are subject to the grievance procedure of the Agreement except as to the decision of the District to deviate from core hours.
In making this Agreement, each party preserves its position with respect to the matters that have been in dispute.
SEIU agrees to dismiss, with prejudice, the court proceeding now pending against the District in Sonoma County Superior Court for breach of contract and injunctive relief. This request for dismissal with prejudice means that SEIU will not refile this case. The parties agree to bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

This Agreement is subject to ratification by SEIU, Local 707 and approval by the District Board of Trustees.

KAISER PRESCRIPTION BENEFIT
Douglas J. Kuula
Communications Officer/CEC

Just wanted to let the staff covered by Kaiser know of some information concerning the prescription coverage.
One of our custodians, Jon Clifford, asked me if there was something wrong with the Kaiser prescription benefit. He told me that it has been his experience, and that of other custodians, that they are paying $25 every time they get a prescription. He was wondering where the $10/generic prescription went. After some discussion I called Kaiser to see what they would say. It turns out that you do not automatically get a generic drug as your first choice as we had been getting when we were paying $1/prescription. Now, you get whatever your doctor writes on the prescription form. Unless you specifically ask your doctor to write you a prescription for a generic drug you will probably get a name brand and pay the $25. I don't know if there is a box on the prescription form that indicates to issue a generic if possible, but most likely the doctor will write out the brand name when he does the form. In addition, if you have refills on a prescription and they are for brand name drugs you will automatically receive the brand name and pay $25 unless you call your doctor and have him change to generic.

The person I talked to at Kaiser Member Services said that you should make sure to tell your doctor that you prefer a generic drug for all your prescriptions if it is available. This could be added to your file.

Power Source Menu

SEIU Home