This page is the clearinghouse and archive for all the reports on negotiations as well as the most current proposals and counter-proposals on each of the articles in the contract being bargained.
Negotiations regarding the two newer units, those who've at least three credit hours (but less than six) for four semesters (the "3-hour" unit) and part-time librarians and part-time counselors, began on December 13 and have run parallel to the negotiations for the original "6-hour" unit. For information on the status of these negotiations, follow the link in the list below.
These will now be provided only in PDF format
The web page and PDF versions of each article reflect the latest proposals and counter-proposals, as of the date of the most recent update. Below is a list of changes made since November 9. There are no copies of earlier versions available.
On May 5, 2005, the College responded to HCAFA's salary proposal (Article 9). That response is here.
On December 13, 2004, HCAFA presented to the College a complete proposal for the three-hour unit. Basically, this proposal was composed of all the tentative agreements already reached between the Association and the College for the 6-hour unit and, where there were no tentative agreements, the latest Association proposals on the table for the 6-hour unit. On that date, it also presented a similar proposal for the librarian/counselor unit, except that the compensation part of the proposal (Article 9 and Appendix A) was not presented until the next meeting. The pay schedule proposed by the Association for the librarian/counselor unit differs from that proposed for the three- and six-hour units. To see what we proposed, click on Compensation Structure for Librarians and Counselors.
On January 6, 2005, the College made complete counter-proposals for both units, incorporating the tentative agreements for the 6-hour units with some language changes specific to those units. Where there were no tentative agreements, the College typically reverted to its original proposals (not its latest proposals). The main exception to this is that the College offered "not acceptable" on "Academic Freedom" (2.1) for the librarian/counselor unit.
The tentative agreements reached for all units can be seen on the Tentative Agreements page.
On June 29, 2004, HCAFA (the Harper College Adjunct Faculty Association) submitted a complete contract proposal to Harper College. We submitted a complete proposal to underscore what full equity with full-time faculty would be, and also to expedite the process of negotiating a fair contract.
We understood that even though we deserved to have every item in the proposal, it was unlikely that our proposed contract would be the contract in its finished form.
We have met with the Harper College negotiating team eighteen times since June 29, for a total of 48 hours:
| Date | Begin | End | Date | Begin | End | |
| 6/29/2004 | 2:00 pm | 2:35 pm | 9/2/2004 | 3:30 pm | 6:25 pm | |
| 7/6/2004 | 2:00 pm | 4:35 pm | 9/14/2004 | 12:30 pm | 3:50 pm | |
| 7/13/2004 | 1:30 pm | 5:00 pm | 9/21/2004 | 12:50 pm | 4:15 pm | |
| 7/20/2004 | 1:40 pm | 5:20 pm | 10/5/2004 | 2:00 pm | 4:35 pm | |
| 8/3/2004 | 3:50 pm | 5:00 pm | 10/12/2004 | 1:30 pm | 5:00 pm | |
| 8/4/2004 | 1:30 pm | 3:50 pm | 10/18/2004 | 3:30 pm | 5:30 pm | |
| 8/10/2004 | 1:30 pm | 5:15 pm | 10/27/2004 | 4:15 pm | 6:00 pm | |
| 8/17/2004 | 1:30 pm | 5:00 pm | 11/2/2004 | 2:00 pm | 4:20 pm | |
| 8/26/2004 | 1:50 pm | 4:55 pm | 11/9/2004 | 12:30 pm | 2:00 pm |
[Met from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm]
At its November 23 meeting with representatives of Harper College, HCAFA presented counter-proposals on Article 2 and Article 4. Most of the discussion was on 2.1 and 2.2.
The section of Article 2 on academic freedom (2.1) remained the same as an earlier Association proposal which accepted a College proposal on faculty academic freedom in part. However, the Association withdrew its language proposal regarding discrimination on the basis of union activity and offered simpler language from the full-time faculty contract on the issue.
A greatly-revised 2.3 on copyrights/publications combined some College language (2.3.B), with explicit incorporation of the College’s existing policy into the contract (2.3.A). It also added guarantees of union representation (2.3.D) in such disputes and Association representatives on the College’s copyright committee (2.3.E). The most distinctive proposal was 2.3.C, which would adjust Board policy on copyrights/publications to the typical situation of adjuncts working at other colleges and/or other employers.
The Association’s proposal on Article 4 (working conditions) was also substantially revised, as the Association combined aspects of its and the College’s most recent proposals. 4.1 (pay for attending meetings) was withdrawn in order to consider it under compensation (Article 9). 4.2 is now 4.1 and has been dramatically shortened to deal with the responsibilities of adjuncts (and the relationship of the contract) regarding Board policies and the Guidebook for Adjunct Faculty. The current 4.2.A (was 4.3.A and 4.3.B) adopts most of the College’s language dealing with office space and keys. 4.2.B deals with email and network accounts, while 4.2.C simplifies the Association’s previous proposal on access to photocopying, etc. 4.2.D simplifies the proposal on listing in the College’s faculty directory and adds listing of adjuncts (with College contact information) on the College website. Sections E and F offer simplified language on issues related to teaching at off-site facilities.
After a caucus, the College rejected the HCAFA proposal on Article II, offering instead to drop 2.1 (academic freedom) and 2.4 (board rights). The College argued that the two sides have been unable to come to agreement on how to deal with academic freedom contractually. The Association responded with an explanation recognizing that the College’s offer continued to protect the College’s management rights through State law, but no such State law protects Members on the issue of Academic Freedom. As a result, we maintained our insistence that adjuncts needed contractual protection on academic freedom.
The rest of the discussion focused on 2.2 (non-discrimination and Sexual Harassment). The College argued that it had an established procedure for handling complaints about discrimination and harassment and that disciplinary decisions coming out of that procedure could be appealed in the later stages of the College-Association grievance process. The College did not recognize the need of the Association to also protect Members who wanted to make allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment. The Association further argued that complaints against members should be protected within the contract process and that handling them through this mutual process might forestall complaints being taken to the EEOC or to the courts.
Time ran out before there could be a discussion regarding the copyrights section and Article IV.
On December 6, 2004, HCAFA and Harper College representatives met from 1:30 pm to 5:15 pm, primarily discussing Article 2, Article 4, and HCAFA’s request to consolidate bargaining for its three units.
On Article 2, the College re-presented its previous proposal on 2.2 (Non-Discrimination), which would concern discrimination only on the grounds of union membership or activity. Its proposal on 2.3 (now titled "Intellectual Property and Copyrights") combined elements of its previous proposal (i.e. stating that policy will be governed by the college manual on Intellectual Property and that adjuncts will adhere to this policy and applicable laws) with modifications of the Association’s (i.e. adjuncts retain rights to classroom use of material they’ve developed without College resources, and the Association may recommend representatives to the Intellectual Property committee).
HCAFA responded to 2.3 with a proposal that reiterated that the existing board policy be "incorporated herein by reference" (making it part of the contract, and any changes therefore subject to negotiation). Harper College has drafted a new Intellectual Property policy, but it has not yet been approved by the Board. The Association accepted the College’s language on adjunct adherence to policy and law and to classroom use of materials. However, it re-proposed language giving adjuncts right to union representation in all dealings related to 2.3.
HCAFA also proposed to reinsert the College’s language on "Institutional Academic Freedom" into 2.1 (keeping the rest of its proposal there intact) as a package to get College approval of the Association’s previous proposal on 2.2 (the Association continues to find 2.4 "Board Rights" unacceptable). The College said that it would accept 2.1 with this re-insertion, but that it would also want to change "shall attempt to" in the second paragraph of "Faculty Academic Freedom" to "shall." For example, their language would say faculty "shall at all times be accurate" rather than "shall attempt at all times to be accurate." HCAFA rejected this as an impossible standard and there was discussion of using terminology such as "should at all times be accurate."
The College again rejected HCAFA’s language in 2.2, stating that the established College procedures for handling discrimination and harassment complaints were adequate. HCAFA responded again that exempting such complaints from the agreed-upon grievance process would be denying adjuncts important rights.
There was also some discussion of HCAFA’a November 23 proposal on Article 4 (working conditions), though the College did not have a written counterproposal. Issues included the importance (and grievability) of the Adjunct Faculty Guidebook, whether adjuncts would be required to establish and maintain a network (email) account, access to computers and copying facilities, and conditions at off-campus facilities.
Finally, recognizing that the College had received late certification of the representation elections for part-time librarians and counselors, and for "three-hour" adjuncts, HCAFA reiterated the demands it’s made at the table and at the last Board meeting for consolidation of bargaining for all three units. The College refused to handle negotiations simultaneously, but did agree to HCAFA’s alternative of setting aside time at the December 13 session to consider the three units sequentially.
For the first hour or so, negotiations for the initial six-hour unit continued, with the College presenting new proposals in Article 4 (working conditions). The most substantive changes dealt with the Adjunct Faculty Handbook (renamed from "Guidebook"). The College and the Association reached tentative agreement on 4.3.A, dealing with adjunct offices, telephones and keys, and on 4.3.C, which guarantees adjuncts access to copying and other office resources. There was continued discussion about the College’s proposal to require adjuncts to apply for and maintain network accounts.
Tentative agreements were also reached on three parts of Article 3.1, dealing with the Association’s rights to meeting space on campus, a bulletin board, and use of the campus mail system. HCAFA also presented a set of counter-proposals on 3.5, 8.2 and 8.3, designed to set uniform ways of handling seniority between the 3-hour and 6-hour units. Basically, seniority would be based on the number of semesters one has taught at Harper (not on the number of credit hours taught), excluding summer terms and breaks in teaching.
When the meeting reconvened to begin negotiations for the three-hour unit, the College swapped out two of its team members with Deans Sally Griffith and Cheryl Kisunzu. HCAFA presented a complete proposal, identical to the latest proposals on the table for the 6-hour unit, and including all the items tentatively agreed to so far. Arlene Bublick insisted that there is no reason to treat these units differently, especially since there is likely to be movement back and forth between them. Moreover, the College itself doesn’t treat those who teach only three hours any differently from those who teach six or more. She asked, therefore, that the College tentatively agree to all the items in this proposal already agreed to for the six-hour unit. The College responded that they’d have to review the entire proposal and bring the new members of their team up to speed.
After a break, the meeting reconvened yet again to begin negotiations for the unit of part-time librarians and counselors. Again, the College switched out Deans, this time bringing in Joseph Accardi for the library and Terry Lindsay for the counselors. Again, HCAFA presented a proposal similar to the 3-hour proposal, albeit with sections missing on course assignments and salary. The Association sought information from the College on the pay schedule for this unit, as well as details on the hiring process, maximum work hours, and benefits.
The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 6.
On January 6, 2005 (from 1:00 pm to 4:30 pm), HCAFA’s team and the three Harper College teams met again in a three-part meeting to discuss the three contracts for the three units.
During the first meeting (dealing with the 6-hour unit), there was an exchange of proposals on issues discussed the last time. The College rejected the Association’s newest proposals dealing with seniority (3.5, 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3), re-offering their last proposals. Discussion focused on why the College found a seniority list unacceptable. Initially, they argued that they could not compile all the information HCAFA was requesting because it isn’t collected all in one place in the current system. However, HCAFA questions revealed that the College also rejects philosophically the notion of allowing seniority to be a consideration in any of the adjunct contracts.
During the second part (discussing 3-hour adjuncts) , Harper College countered HCAFA's initial offer with a complete counter proposal for the 3-hour unit . Although HCAFA's proposal duplicated the current 6-hour proposal including all items for which a tentative agreement exists, the College counter-proposal even rejected the tentatively-agreed language from the 6-hour contract. Further, on items such as Academic Freedom, the College restated their initial positions for the 6-hour contract instead of their current proposals that are on the table. When asked why they took such a stand, the College stated that "we are starting from the beginning on each contract." This led to more discussion on why the College insisted on separate negotiations for the three units. The College said that it believed it was legally required to do so. When Mark Michaels asked them to show us some legal basis (e.g. a court decision or Labor Board ruling) why they could not negotiate simultaneously for all three units, he got the College to concede that they had chosen their position as a matter of policy rather than legality.
The third part of the meeting focused on the librarian/counselor unit and the HCAFA team was joined (actually for the whole meeting) by part-time counselor Barbara Kraemer. The College team presented its complete counter-proposal for that unit and pointed out the differences (mostly minor) between that proposal and its latest proposals for the 6-hour unit. It did not make any proposals on academic freedom (2.1) or intellectual property (2.3), stating that these issues were not relevant for part-time librarians and part-time counselors. However, HCAFA pointed out that some do teach credit classes and that they need explicit protections in their contract since they cannot be members of two bargaining units at the same time.
The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 10.
The HCAFA team met with Harper College's three teams from 1:00pm to 5:00 pm on January 10.
During the portion dealing with the unit of "6-hour" adjuncts, the College presented a counter-proposal on the Adjunct Faculty Handbook (4.2.A). This incorporated a phrase from the Association's last proposal, but the two sides are still searching for language which will express their concerns about what will be covered under the grievance procedure in this section. There was also a lot of discussion of the College's current "Acceptable Use" policy for network accounts. This relates to a proposal by the College (4.3.B) to require adjuncts to apply for and maintain network accounts and an Association proposal (3.1.F) to give HCAFA access to the College network (e.g. email) to conduct union business. The remainder of this portion was a discussion of the Association's proposal to require listing of adjuncts in the Faculty Directory, including on the website (4.2.D aka 4.3.D).
The second part of the meeting dealt with the unit of part-time librarians and part-time counselors. The Association proposed and the College accepted tentative agreements on all the items on which the two sides had already reached tentative agreement for the 6-hour unit. Although the College had made slight language changes in some of those clauses to reflect particularities of this unit, the Association accepted those changes without proposing any of its own. The remainder of that section focused on why the College had made no proposal at all on academic freedom for this unit. The College contended that because the job tasks of librarians and counselors were different than those of teaching faculty, this language wasn't appropriate. The Association argued that librarians and counselors are covered under academic freedom in the full-time contract and that they need explicit protection of their academic freedom, both as librarians and counselors, and as occasional teachers (who might not be covered under the other contracts).
Finally, the two sides discussed the three-hour unit, with the College finishing the presentation of its complete counterproposal. The Association reiterated that the College was not really treating the 3- and 6-hour units of adjunct faculty any differently (and never had), so that there was no reason to continue negotiating their contracts separately. Nevertheless, the Association proposed and the College accepted tentative agreements on all the same items for this unit as it had for the librarian/counselor unit. The remainder of that section of the meeting was an exploration (with Cheryl Kisunzu and Larry Bielawa of the College side) of the College's anti-discrimination and affirmative action programs. This is necessary because the College has said that the contract should only refer to discrimination against unit members only on the basis of their membership or non-membership in the union; any other kind of discrimination is covered, they argued, by existing College policies, and should thus not be subject to the contract's grievance procedure. Kisunzu and Bielawa described how the College informs employees of its policies and procedures regarding discrimination and how it conducts investigations into allegations. The Association questioned how effectively adjuncts are informed of these policies and procedures. Moreover, Kisunzu described an investigatory process which, while emphasizing the College's commitment to pursue discrimination allegations aggressively, expects those making the allegations to produce "hard" evidence and asks them to consider seriously whether they want to pursue the allegations through the process.
The two sides will meet again on January 27 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm.
The first part of the meeting included discussion of a wide range of issues: adjunct listings in the faculty directories online and through the telephone switchboard (see the Association’s proposal for 4.2.D), inadequate computer facilities for adjuncts, the College’s new ethics policy (mandated by changes in state law), and a reorganization plan for the College. On the last issue, the Association complained that adjuncts had not been informed of this despite the fact that some of the motivation for this reorganization was unionization among adjuncts.
A tentative agreement was reached on 4.2.A (Adjunct Faculty Handbook), which clarified that this handbook was an information resource and would be superseded by the contract where they conflicted. There was also some discussion of the College’s existing and proposed policy on copyright and intellectual property. The Association still insists that adjuncts be entitled to legal or Association representative when their cases are handled by the College’s review committee.
The two sides also discussed Association use of College email accounts, with the College insisting that this should be limited since the Association is not a College organization and its business is not College business. The Association proposed to accept the College’s proposal to require adjuncts to have network accounts (4.3.B) in exchange for the College accepting the Association’s proposal to allow it to use College email accounts (3.1.F). The College responded that they were concerned the Association would use email against the College, e.g. to organize a strike, while the Association stressed that email communication was essential for adjuncts, who are not on campus full-time.
The "three-hour" portion of the meeting was brief, with the Association reiterating its stance on outstanding issues for the 6-hour. The two also tentatively agreed (for the 3-hour unit) to 4.2.A (Adjunct Faculty Handbook). The Association proposed to withdraw 3.4 (Association Information Requests) – after a caucus the College agreed and the two sides initialed a tentative agreement to withdraw that section.
The last part of the meeting, on part-time librarians and part-time counselors, TAd the withdrawal of 3.4 but not the Adjunct Faculty Handbook (4.2.A). The College noted that it hadn’t responded yet to the Association’s proposal to apply this to librarians and counselors because they were still considering whether those employees needed a handbook and, if so, what would go into it. The Association noted that full-time librarians and full-time counselors are covered in the full-time faculty handbook, so it didn’t make sense to treat their part-time counterparts differently. The College also refused to agree to the "recognition" clause for this unit and there was disagreement on whether an individual could be in more than one unit at a time and whether the various unit definitions were consistent.
The two sides will meet again on February 15 from 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm.
The HCAFA team met with Harper College’s team from 1:15pm to 3:35 pm on February 15, 2005.
Early discussion focused on email and the College’s plans to revamp the HIP page and make internal College documents more accessible. The College then rejected the Association’s offer to accept both the College proposal on adjunct electronic accounts (4.3.B) and the Association’s on Association email use (3.1.E), saying that it could not properly police Association use. Instead, the College said, both proposals could be dropped. Later in the meeting, the Association proposed to drop 3.1.E in exchange for keeping the College’s 4.3.B with a small change to protect adjuncts’ rights to College email and internet access (rather than requiring this of adjuncts).
The College presented a proposal on Intellectual Property and Copyrights (2.3). The Association countered with a proposal that it believes will protect adjunct rights to legal and Association representation in negotiating with the College over royalties. By the end of the meeting, the two sides reached tentative agreement on this section.
There was also some discussion of an Association proposal on personnel files (Article 5). This was modeled on the language in the full-time faculty contract. The College asked how it related to the Association’s proposal on Evaluation (8.1), which also discusses materials placed in a personnel file.
The two sides will meet again on February 24 from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm.
The meeting began with the Association airing some issues which have been heard from members: seeming changes in the maximum course load for adjuncts and adjunct discounts at the ticket office. The College denied that if changes are happening, they are due to negotiations, but instead are attributable to independent efforts to standardize administration.
The College reiterated that it wished to withdraw its proposal on Electronic Accounts (4.3.B), while the Association maintained that adjuncts should have access to such accounts guaranteed in the contract.
The Association offered a revised proposal on Personnel Files and Evaluations, essentially modeled on language regarding evaluations in the full-time faculty contract but adding an additional sentence at the beginning. This would make 8.1 (Evaluation System) superfluous, so the Association proposed to drop its own proposal and the College’s in favor of this expansion of the language in Article V. The College objected that personnel files and evaluation materials should be handled separately (i.e. in Article V for personnel files and Article 8.1 for evaluations).
The Association also offered a new proposal for 7.1 (Discipline), simply adding the concept of "just cause" for dismissal to the College’s last proposal. There was no time to discuss this, but the meeting did discuss how far back the College could go in documenting the teaching histories of adjuncts. The meeting concluded with a discussion of the recognition clause (1.2.A) for the librarian/counselor unit. The College insists that they be treated separately from the 3-hour teaching unit, but the Association raised concerns about how part-time librarians and counselors would be treated contractually when they teach credit courses. The College said they would not be covered at all for teaching activity.
The two sides will meet again on March 3 from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm.
The meeting began with an update on date of hire issues and adjunct discounts, and the College re-asserted its proposal to withdraw 4.3B (Electronic Accounts).
Discussion focused on Article 7 (Discipline), with the College making a new proposal stating that adjuncts would be given reason(s) for suspension or discharge. The College could not, however, accept the Association’s insertion of "just cause" because that could be interpreted differently, particularly by an arbitrator. There was considerable discussion of whether an arbitrator would really make an irrational decision that a discharge was not for "just cause" or whether the College simply didn’t want an outside party making such decisions.
The Association then followed up on the maximum course load issue, urging the College to make its policy clear to adjuncts and administrators. More broadly, the Association said the College should try to build trust among adjuncts, many of whom are fearful of speaking out on such issues. Toward the end of the meeting, the Association raised this issue again by referring to its proposal on Maximum Contact Hours (8.3.B), but the College insisted that such a limit was not appropriate in the contract and the Board must be free to set this policy.
The College and the Association reached tentative agreement on 8.1 (Evaluation System) and the Association made a new proposal on Article V (Personnel Files). Discussion on the latter focused on whether there needed to be language on removing materials, whether adjuncts must sign acknowledging receipt of disciplinary notices, whether there must be a right to respond to negative materials, and whether there are files (besides the personnel file) which could contain evaluative materials. There was also some question of what materials are actually in the personnel file and to what extent employees get copies of this material.
The two sides will meet again on March 8 from 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm.
The College made changes in its proposals for Articles 8, 5, and 7 to address the issues raised at the March 3 meeting. A small change in 8.1 was designed to ensure that adjuncts would receive copies of evaluative materials. Article 5 now refers to an "official personnel file" (to address concerns about "floating files"), while the College’s proposal for 7.1 adds language authorizing employee responses to disciplinary notices. This led to discussion of how the College would (and now does) handle such issues as student complaints and also which materials go into Dean’s and supervisor’s files and how they then get into the official personnel file. The College’s use of student evaluations also came up, and the Association expressed concern over who would do teaching evaluations and how often. The College acknowledged that it is considering revising its evaluation methods and the Association asserted that this is a "working condition" which ought to be bargained if it’s changed.
The Association then presented a new proposal on Article 5 (personnel files), with some small changes clarifying the concept of a single personnel file and who must approve removals. The two sides exchanged proposals on 7.1 (discipline). The College’s proposal clarified when adjuncts would receive copies of disciplinary notices, while the Association’s added language requiring that an adjunct acknowledge receipt of such notices and stating that the College could not use any materials for discipline which weren’t in the personnel file. This led to much discussion of how material gets into the file, and how supervisors handle potential discipline issues.
The meeting concluded with tentative agreements for the three-hour unit on 2.3 (Intellectual Property and Copyrights) and 4.3.B (Secretarial Services)
The two sides will meet again on March 17 from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm.
Negotiators for Harper College and the HCAFA met on Thursday, March 17 from 1:20pm to 3:05pm, focusing primarily on the part-time librarian and part-time counselor unit. Trying to bring this unit in line with negotiations for the other two units, HCAFA proposed tentative agreement on Intellectual Property (2.3) and the Adjunct Faculty Handbook (4.3.A). The College rejected both.
HCAFA argued that, since part-time librarians and counselors were in a separate bargaining unit with their own contract, they had to be explicitly covered by that contract's provisions regarding teaching-related activities. The College countered that these people were not hired to teach, but for other duties. If they taught in addition to their primary job duties, they would not be covered by the contracts for the part-time teacher units (because they weren't in those units) and would be governed instead by the provisions for non-union part-time teachers. Specifically, the intellectual property protections were inappropriate; any work that librarians and counselors did on College time would be the College's property. The current Adjunct Faculty handbook also does not apply to part-time librarians and counselors, according to the College, and the College may or may not develop a separate handbook for these employees. HCAFA argued that the full-time faculty contract handles both teaching faculty and full-time counselors and librarians, without any distinctions such as those the College is making now between part-time faculty, librarians, and counselors.
For the six-hour unit, HCAFA offered a new proposal on 8.1 (Evaluation System), while the College offered a new proposal on 5.1 (Access to Personnel Files). On the latter, the College stated that it didn't think that adjuncts would need to approve when items were removed from their personnel files. The College stated that it needed to be allowed to remove "irrelevant" material, but HCAFA was concerned that the College might also remove positive material from the file without notice or approval.
The two sides are scheduled to meet again on Thursday, April 7 from 1:30 to 3:30.
HCAFA and the College met on Thursday, April 7 from 1:40pm to 3:30pm. The College presented a new proposal on 5.1 (Access to Personnel Files). The Association suggested, partly in response to questions from Board members, that the two sides should set some deadlines for finishing work on parts of the contract. Most of the time, however, was spent discussing the interests of the two sides in the issues of job security, class assignments and seniority.
HCAFA presented its interests first. Job security was addressed primarily in terms of maintaining membership in the bargaining unit: adjuncts should not be excluded from the unit(s) because of a reduction in course load or complete loss of classes, there should be a recognition of an employment relationship with the school, and unit membership should only need to be demonstrated once. On course assignments: the process should help to maintain unit membership, job assignments should not be arbitrary, there should be a relative assurance that the job continues, unit members should get preference in assignments over non-unit members, and there should be a rational and uniform method in applying for assignments. Seniority means rewarding an ongoing commitment by adjuncts to the College and is thus an alternative to arbitrary course assignments; it should also be defined in a way that considers the length of one's relationship with the College [i.e. number of terms taught] versus the frequency of the relationship [number of credits taught].
This led to some discussion of the meaning of the labor laws governing definition of adjuncts, "temporary" employees, and "part-time" employees. The College insisted that adjuncts would need to teach a consistent number of hours every semester, but conceded that the contract could define an "ongoing employment relationship" in ways that would weaken the legal definition.
After a caucus, the College presented its interests in course assignments: maintaining an excellent workforce, matching the right professional with the College's need, flexibility in being able to provide educational opportunities, and having the Illinois Community College Act's definition of adjunct faculty serve as the foundation. The Association asked how seniority conflicted with excellence and the College responded that some senior faculty have not kept current in their fields. The Association replied that the College could deal with such issues through evaluation and suggested that the current assignment process looked like a hodgepodge of favoritism. The College side objected strenuously to this suggestion. The Association sought a clearer explanation of what the College meant by excellence, given that evaluations are rarely or inconsistently used. HCAFA made two other key points: the College should be able to determine whether an adjunct is "excellent" after the three semesters it takes to get into the bargaining unit, and job security is important to retaining excellent faculty.
The two sides will meet again on Thursday, April 14 from 2:00pm to 5:00pm.
Negotiators for Harper College and HCAFA met on Thursday, April 14 from 2:10 pm to 5:15 pm. HCAFA began the meeting by noting that Harper College representatives were not at a large gathering in Springfield on April 13 to promote higher education funding (many NEA members were there). The Association also expressed disappointment that President Breuder said (with some satisfaction) at the last Board meeting that Harper College was third in its cohort (of community colleges in Illinois) in terms of pay for adjunct faculty and, moreover, did not address any of the comments made by adjuncts at that meeting about job security. More broadly, the Association complained that negotiations are continuing to drag on as the College consistently fails to go beyond what the laws absolutely require them to do. The College side responded that they were trying to respond to our issues and that, since this is a first contract, it must be examined carefully, no matter how long it takes.
After a caucus, the Association noted that its request to the College for an updated list of the bargaining units was met with a minimal response (names and addresses, but no phone numbers, departmental information, start dates, etc.). The discussion then shifted to seniority, course assignments, and maintenance of inclusion in the bargaining unit. The Association suggested that the College's concern to assure excellent instruction didn't necessarily conflict with HCAFA's concerns with seniority - experienced teachers who have become less effective over time should be evaluated and offered ways to improve. The College responded that they don't intend to arbitrarily dismiss anyone and that their culture is to help people improve. The Association said that this should be codified in the contract to protect adjuncts.
Much of the discussion focused on situations where loss of course assignments (e.g. because of low enrollment) would drop adjuncts out of the 6-hour unit into the 3-hour unit, or out of both units. The College insisted that it had to follow the existing unit definition because that was prescribed by the law and added that its proposed language on class assignments ensured that those decisions wouldn't be arbitrary. The Association said that it hoped the College could address our interests and that together the two sides could come up with solutions to balance management flexibility and seniority, thereby keeping experienced adjuncts under the protections of the contract.
On Tuesday, April 19, negotiators for the College and the Association met from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm. HCAFA brought a new proposal on 5.2 (Access to Personnel Files) and the College a revision of its last proposal on 7.1 (Discipline). Later in the meeting, HCAFA presented a counter-proposal on 7.1 (Discipline). The meeting also continued the previous discussion on job security, with the Association informally proposing a mechanism to keep adjuncts in the unit for a limited number of semesters, even if they don't have course assignments.
The Association proposal for 5.2 added a new paragraph based on the Personnel Records Review Act giving employees the right to rebut any information in their personnel files. In addition, the Association proposed (based on that Act) that employees should have access to all personnel files held by their employers. This would include not only the "official personnel file" in Human Resources, but also records kept by Deans. The College saw no problem with the new language on rebuttals, but disagreed that Dean's files would be covered under the Act.
The College's proposal on discipline (7.1) added language regarding the adjunct's acknowledgement of receipt of notices of disciplinary action, but rejected the Association's insertion of language stating that suspension or discharge would be "neither arbitrary nor capricious." The Association explained that they were still concerned about adjuncts not knowing about adverse materials (e.g. those held in a Dean's file) until they appeared in a disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, HCAFA's counter-proposal broadened the language to refer to "personnel file" rather than the "official personnel file in the Human Resources Office" and to refer to "materials of a negative or adverse nature" rather than "written notice of disciplinary action."
The Association presented an idea which could deal with maintaining adjuncts' membership in the bargaining unit, while still allowing the College to follow the legal definition of the unit. This would be to offer adjuncts who don't have classes in a particular a "zero percent time appointment." Although not paid, they would be available for special assignments and would continued to be covered by the contract. The College said that they would think about this idea.
The two sides are scheduled to meet again on Thursday, May 5 from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm.
The librarian/counselor portion of the meeting, the College passed out a proposal to foramalize in writing a previous agreement to withdraw 4.2.B (electronic accounts). They also had a proposal on 8.1 (Evaluation System), paralleling the language proposed for the six-hour unit. Finally, the College proposed new language on Article 9 (compensation). In 9.1, they proposed a three-cell table based on number of semesters at the College, but with no advancement for educational experience. Much of the discussion focused on 9.4 (Institutional Meetings) - the College proposed language that would cover pay for attending such meetings as part of the regular hourly pay. HCAFA objected that this wasn't clear from the language they proposed.
The two sides are scheduled to meet again on May 17 from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm.
Reflecting the recent victory of HCAFA in the election to consolidate the three-hour and six-hour teaching units, the College presented an updated proposal for the new unit. This covered Articles one through eight, basically everything except the compensation issues in Article nine. Most of the meeting focused on going through that proposal, much of which simply re-proposed existing language and tentative agreements. Most notably, the College still finds the Association's proposals for discipline (Article 7), academic freedom (2.1), non-discrimination (2.2), and fair share (3.2) unacceptable and has stuck with its latest proposals on each.
The College expressed hope that the contract could be settled by the end of the fiscal year (June 30), asserting that all the issues had been thoroughly discussed. The Association argued that this process would be helped if the College would provide some language it could find acceptable in the numerous places where it had responded "Not Acceptable" to Association proposals.
There were some significant changes, however, in Articles one, three, and eight. In Article one, the College proposed new language for "maintenance of inclusion" (1.2.B), which would keep a unit member in the unit when that person was not teaching in a particular semester (but only for one semester). Job security would also be addressed by a new proposal for 3.6 ("Date of Hire," was called "Seniority" in the Association's proposals), which would "grandfather" in all unit members as of the end of the Spring 2005 semester, giving them credit for teaching consecutively back to the "date of hire" listed in their personnel record. The most significant change in Article 8 was to 8.3.B.1 (Class Assignments) where the College changed some terms (e,g, "education" to "academic credentials") and added classroom evaluations as a criterion the College may use in making assignments.
Also, HCAFA proposed a new version of 5.2 (Access to Personnel Files). Addressing its concerns with moving material in and out of the personnel file, access to materials in Deans' files, and the conformance of the contract with the Illinois Personnel Records Review Act, the Association presented language based largely on the College's policy manual. The College responded that employees would be covered under that law and that the contract language didn't need to be as specific or comprehensive as either the law or the policy manual. The Association responded that key issues such as mutual consent to remove documents needed to be addressed contractually since the contract would supersede the law and Board policy.
Meeting only one day after the previous meeting, HCAFA nevertheless presented a complete response to the College's proposal on Articles one through eight. The College also responded to the Association's proposal on 5.2. The College re-asserted that it did not consider the Dean's files "discoverable" under the Personnel Records Act, but said that it would consider some additional language to deal with mutual removal of documents and also to address the Association's repeated concerns on Dean's files.
The Association responded to the College's movement on job security issues by proposing that adjuncts stay in the unit if they don't teach in two consecutive semesters (rather than the one semester the College had proposed and a semester less than the Association had initially proposed). HCAFA also made some clarifications to the College's proposal in 1.2.D, accepting the College's shift from a bi-annual unit list to an annual one in April, but making clear that such a list would not only identify those currently eligible, but also those who would become eligible in the fall. The Association also proposed changes to 3.6 (Date of Hire), including moving it to 8.2, but more fundamentally arguing that anyone teaching in the Spring 2005 semester who has taught four consecutive semesters at some point since 1997 would get credit for teaching back to his/her date of hire. This would cover those who may have failed to qualify for the unit because a one-semester lapse in teaching and would make this section consistent with the maintenance of inclusion proposals in 1.2.B.
The Association also made some significant concessions to move the negotiations along. In Article 3, it proposed to withdraw two proposals (3.1.F (Association E-mail and Internet Use) and 3.1.G (Association Use of College Reprographics Department). In Article 4, the Association proposed to drop all the various forms of leave, collapsing them all into "Personal Paid Leave,' but requiring three days off per semester rather than just the one proposed by the College. The College responded that it wouldn't prevent employees from taking such days off, it just wouldn't pay them for more than one. In Article 8, the Association proposed to accept the College's changes to 8.3.B (assignments), as long as "seniority" was an additional criterion the College may consider. Following its earlier proposals, the Association also proposed that unit members ought to get preference in assignments over non-unit members. The Association also made revised proposals on 8.3.C (Cancellation of Assignments), clarifying its language, but reiterating that the College should try to replace cancelled assignments, that those losing assignments be informed in writing, and that those who lose assigned classes will still be protected by the contract.
However, the Association also held firm on its proposals for fair share (3.2), discipline (Article 7), and full-time job opportunities (8.5). On Article 2, the Association offered a package deal where the College would keep a modified version of Board Rights (2.4), but its section on "Institutional Academic Freedom" in 2.2 would be changed to substantially mirror the section on "Faculty Academic Freedom." The Association repeated its concern that the College's existing proposal on "Institutional Academic Freedom" is in fact another version of board rights, so in effect the College would be getting two bites of that apple. The College was unsympathetic to that argument.
The two sides are scheduled to meet again on Tuesday, June 7 from 1:30 to 4:30.
Representatives of Harper College and HCAFA met on Tuesday, June 7 from 1:45 pm to 5:00 pm. The College brought responses on several of the recent proposals by the Association, but made little movement toward the Association's positions. In particular, they said they were unwilling to allow more than one semester's lapse in teaching for remaining in the unit. They would, however, provide a listing of unit members that would include those within one semester of eligibility. The College also insisted that "Institutional Academic Freedom" (2.2) is distinct from "Board Rights" (2.4). The Association objected that institutional academic freedom refers to protecting the College against government interference and was thus inappropriate to a contract between the College and its employees.
On access to personnel files (5.2), the College inserted language (as requested by the Association) to require mutual consent for the removal of documents. In Article 8, the College proposed to remove its language defining "Teaching and Related Tasks" (8.3.A). In 8.3.B and 8.4, the College has agreed to include language stating that the College will provide forms on which requests for regular and substitute assignments may be made. The College also made a new proposal on cancellation of assignments, requiring prompt notification and an attempt to find a replacement assignment.
Returning to Article 2, the Association proposed to move some of the College's language on Institutional Academic Freedom to the section on Board Rights (2.4). The Association also made a new proposal on Non-Discrimination (2.2) - acknowledging that the College has an established procedure for handling discrimination complaints, this would entitle adjuncts to union representation in this process and to appeal any decisions made to an arbitrator.
After caucuses, the Association gave its responses on the various College proposals, with much of the discussion focusing on academic freedom, with the Association objecting that the College's requirement that adjuncts "should at all times be accurate" was absolute. The Association also objected that the College's language giving Deans "sole discretion" in making course assignments made the criteria cited prior to that in 8.3.B meaningless. Such problems led the Association to question whether the College was really serious about its expressed desire to reach a settlement by the end of the fiscal year on June 30.
The next scheduled meeting is on Thursday, June 9 from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm.
The June 20 meeting between HCAFA and College representatives was a considerable step forward on the road to reaching a contract agreement. Tentative agreements were reached on thirty-eight separate sections of the contract. This movement reflected several factors: the College's eagerness to complete negotiations by June 30, the convening of "sidebar" sessions at the June 9 and June 14 meetings to set parameters for reaching resolution on contentious points, and concessions on both sides of the table. There are, however, three major sticking points: preference for unit members over non-unit members in course assignments, fair share, and the salary package. These and a few other minor points will be discussed at the next meeting on June 22.
On salary, the College has stuck with the new salary schedule it proposed last August, which has one row, with columns defined by a mix of educational attainment and credit hours taught at Harper. Over the last few sessions, however, it has offered raises beyond that August proposal. The Association has dropped its original proposal, which modeled salary steps on the full-time faculty contract and based the numbers in those steps on equity with full-time faculty. Instead, the Association is now proposing to retain the current salary structure, with rows and columns defined by educational attainment and years of teaching experience. We are now proposing, however, to base the money figures on equity with part-time salaries at Oakton Community College. Harper College currently ranks third in its cohort of northern Illinois community colleges in pay for adjuncts (behind Oakton and College of DuPage). However, its tax base is larger than that of Oakton and its pay for full-time faculty is nearly identical. The Association argues that Harper therefore ought to be able to pay its adjuncts at the same rate as Oakton.
As far as what was accomplished over the last three meetings, here is an article-by-article summary of the highlights (these are all tentative agreements)
On Wednesday, June 22, HCAFA representatives met again with representatives of Harper College and further narrowed the gap between the two sides. To accomplish this, tentative agreements were signed on unit recognition (1.2.A), union representation at (disciplinary) meetings (7.2), class assignment (8.3), meeting pay (9.4), and large lecture enrollment pay (9.5). There are four remaining issues: the salary structure and rates, fair share, substitute pay, and tuition waiver.
The unit recognition language needed to be changed to reflect the consolidation of the "three-hour" and "six-hour" teaching units into one unit. Representation at meetings now codifies in the contract the rights adjuncts have as employees under the "Weingarten" decision. On meeting pay, the College increased its offer to $25 per hour (from $18). The language in 9.5 codifies existing College practice (outlined in the full-time faculty contract) for extra pay when there is a class with large enrollment.
Most of the discussion at the meeting concerned the salary structure, but a compromise was reached on the important issue of class assignments (8.3). The Association accepted College language that outlines a set of criteria which Deans will consider in making class assignments. Over the months this has been discussed, the Association has gotten the College to specify that it will provide a form on which scheduling requests will be made and that it will notify (when possible) adjuncts of their next semester's assignments by the end of the current semester. More recently, the Association won a concession that unit members will get preference in assignment over non-unit members. The College insisted, however, that such preference would only apply to getting a three-credit-hour assignment to stay in the unit. At this meeting, the Association pushed for and got language stating that this assignment would be to a section "most likely to run."
Very little movement occurred on the central issue of the pay structure and rates. The College's proposal dropped a paragraph concerning the assignment of under-enrolled classes on a pro-rata pay basis. This was in response to the Association's concern that such "offers" by Deans to adjuncts to reduce their regular pay because of low enrollment might not be perceived as truly voluntary agreements by adjuncts. The College did not change its basic proposal on pay structure and rates, as presented on June 20, and neither did the Association. However, the Association presented arguments on why the College's new pay structure was unworkable. It also argued that the College should consider how fair it is that Harper adjuncts are paid less than adjuncts at Oakton Community College, despite the fact that full-time faculty are paid roughly the same at both institutions and that Harper's tax base is higher than Oakton's.
Last revised on August 20, 2005
by the Webmaster.