2004-2005: Bargaining Report #1: July 21-22, 2004, Los Angeles, CA
The Coalition of University Employees current bargaining team met
with the bargaining team from the University of California for the first
bargaining session of the new contract on July 21 and 22, 2004 at the
UCLA campus.
The bargaining session of July 21 began with a round of
introductions. Peter Chester then opened the session by saying that he
was looking forward to working with CUE towards a "win-win" outcome.
We then began the Demand/Explanation phase, starting with
Article 1 of the contract, Access/Union Rights. All of UC's proposals are
designed to weaken CUE-by putting a cap on the number of stewards allowed
on each campus, by revoking CUE's right to alert new staff at orientation
to separate CUE meetings, or to make CUE literature available at the
orientation, among other things. CUE's proposals run contrary to this
line of thinking. We are asking for an increase of stewards per campus,
to be alerted to and allowed time to speak and pass out literature at new
staff orientations, for UC to provide paid release time for stewards to
attend PERB hearings for training purposes and for UC to provide CUE with
contact information for new hires. There was disagreement on all issues
by both sides.
The teams then moved on to Article 2, Agreement. CUE's
proposals here are simple clarifications of current contract language and
a deletion intended to clean up a redundant part of the article. UC's
proposals again aim to cut our membership numbers by seeking to revert to
contract language that existed before the current contract. This language
gives UC the power to reclassify clericals out of the bargaining unit,
forcing CUE to take the matter to PERB. They also propose to allow UC to
abolish classes without giving notice to CUE.
The day ended with a discussion of the bargaining ground
rules. While acknowledging that an official student representative is
permitted to attend bargaining sessions under HEERA, UC is proposing to
delete the language which allows the general student body to attend as
guests, asserting that having students present would make the UC team
feel "stifled" and unable to "think creatively." CUE feels this is
discriminatory and that it would give the student body the impression of
collusion between CUE and UC. CUE is proposing to change the language
that states that once the parties sign off on a tentative agreement, the
article may not be revisited for revisions. CUE feels this is
unnecessarily rigid in that it blocks the parties from making later
changes that may be more beneficial for both parties. UC felt this would
open the door for regressive or bad-faith bargaining. We ended the day
with an agreement to revisit the issue the next morning.
On July 22, the discussion of ground rules continued. CUE expressed
concern that barring students from attending bargaining as guests might
later be used by UC to bar CUE members who are also students from
participating in bargaining. The UC team was not aware that clericals are
also sometimes part- or full-time students, and Mr. Chester assured CUE
that in a case in which a bargaining team member was also a student, that
person would be allowed to bargain. Both teams agreed to research the
legal repercussions of these ideas and discuss them at the next
bargaining session. Otherwise, there was no agreement on ground rules.
CUE then put forth two proposals for Article 3,
Arbitration. CUE proposes to be allowed two representatives on pay status
attend grievance meetings for the purpose of training stewards. CUE also
seeks to change language to indicate that an arbitrator has the authority
to order appropriate "make-whole" relief. UC opposed both these
proposals.
The teams moved on to Article 4, Corrective
Action/Discipline and Dismissal. CUE proposes to be notified at each step
of discipline in order to help prevent further, more serious discipline
by getting involved earlier. CUE also proposes that UC notify CUE at the
same time it places an employee on investigatory leave and to be copied
on any correspondence UC sends to the employee during the investigatory
leave, as well as be notified by UC of the outcome of the investigation.
Finally, CUE proposes to clarify the status and role of a Skelly officer.
UC proposed to change the language to specifically state that performance
evaluations and counseling memos are not discipline and cannot be grieved
or arbitrated and to add the words "a good-faith estimate" to the rule
about the information UC provides employees placed on investigatory leave
about the duration of said leave. Again, there was disagreement on both
sides.
The final article discussed was Article 5, Duration. CUE
proposes a multi-year agreement with guaranteed annual range (cost of
living) wage adjustments and fully implemented salary/step programs in
each year. For the successor contract, CUE proposes that CUE and UC
exchange proposals 6 months prior to the expiration of the contract. UC
proposed that the contract currently being bargained for expire on Sept.
30, 2007 and to delete any language concerning reopener bargaining. UC
proposes a timetable for successor agreement identical to the current
contract. Finally, UC proposes to reduce the number of paid bargaining
team members from 11 to four, and to reduce the amount of team
preparation time from five days to three. The day ended again in total
disagreement.
On both days, several CUE members and bargaining team
alternates wearing CUE t-shirts sat in as guests, eliciting several
surprised remarks from the UC team. In general, the UC team appeared
unprepared and unknowledgeable about the reasons for their own proposals
and refused to consider any of the CUE bargainers' ample compelling
arguments, examples and ideas.
Originally, Peter Chester said UC was looking forward to obtaining a
"win-win" situation. However, when he was asked how each of UC's
proposals equaled a "win" for CUE, he either declined or was unable to
answer-except for the moment when he stated to a team member who
challenged him on the issue that "you [CUE] don't always get what you
want." After repeatedly being asked to define "win-win" by the rest of
the team over the two-day period, Mr. Chester explained that what he
really meant was that CUE would have to give a little and UC would have
to give a little, and that "perhaps a better way to say it would be
'lose-lose.'" The rest of Mr. Chester's team scoffed openly at this
remark and chided him for saying it.
The next bargaining session will take place August 10 and 11, 2004 at
UCOP.
CUE's Bargaining Team:
Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie, Chief Negotiator, UC Berkeley
Norine Shima, UC Berkeley
Helane Carpenter, LBNL
Mary Jo Kelly, UC Davis
Cynthia Norman, UC Irvine
Bert Thomas, UC Los Angeles
Stacey Fullwiler, UC Riverside
Mary Higgins, UC San Francisco
Melinda Gandara, UC Santa Barbara
Kevin Parks, UC Santa Cruz
Nancy Kabzenell, UC San Diego
