State issues complaint against Palomar College
By: NOELLE IBRAHIM - Staff Writer
Board mediator to meet with administration, faculty union in March | ∞
SAN MARCOS ---- A state agency has asked an administrative law judge to help resolve a dispute between Palomar College's administration and faculty labor union regarding allegations that the district failed to negotiate with the union over a change in benefits.
The decision is outlined in a complaint issued against the college by the state's Public Employment Relations Board, which has been evaluating unfair labor practices charges filed by the union in September.
The complaint, issued Feb. 14, is not a determination that college officials have engaged in unfair labor practices, said Les Chisholm, division chief in the state board's office of the general counsel.
Rather, it indicates that if the union could provide proof the district failed to bargain in good faith, then that would "arguably" violate the state's Educational Employment Relations Act, Chisholm said. The act aims to improve personnel management and employer-employee relations in public school systems.
An administrative law judge will act as a mediator during a informal settlement conference slated for some time in March.
"We're trying to help the parties discuss issues that gave rise to the complaint and what can be done to resolve the dispute to avoid the need to litigate the matter," Chisholm said.
If a resolution cannot be reached, another administrative law judge could hold a hearing in which the union would have to prove its case. Historically, 50 percent to 60 percent of cases are resolved at the conference stage, he said.
The union accused the district of changing a benefits policy ---- one that since 1993 has allowed faculty and staff free use of on-campus health services for the treatment of ailments that could be addressed by a nurse ---- without giving the union an opportunity to negotiate the change beforehand, said Shannon Lienhart, co-president of the faculty union.
The change, which went into effect July 1, 2007, imposed a $10 charge on faculty and staff for the use of the previously free services.
"As the volume of services increased, we needed to charge a nominal amount to keep providing access (to faculty and staff) without impacting students or student health fees," said John Tortarolo, vice president of human resources and the district's lead negotiator.
Lienhart said the district retracted the benefit without notifying the union beforehand, even though it must negotiate changes in wages, benefits and working conditions by law.
Palomar President Bob Deegan said that while it may have been past practice to offer the free health services, the policy is not written into the faculty's contract.
The union has a right to negotiate workplace issues, whether they are in the contract or not, said Lienhart.
Deegan also said the union filed the charge without making a request to negotiate the issue.
"If they did indeed request a meeting, we would have been happy to negotiate that issue," Deegan said. "That request was never submitted."
Lienhart said she told Deegan during a district meeting Sept. 18 that the district must negotiate with the union on the issue. Deegan told her the district did not need to negotiate the issue, Lienhart said. During a governing board meeting Tuesday, Deegan said that conversation didn't happen.
The district has no record of a demand to bargain, either oral or written, and is prepared to defend itself, Tortarolo said.
The union filed another, separate unfair labor practices charge last week, which blamed the administration for stalled negotiations that have left 1,100 professors without a labor contract after 16 months at the bargaining table.
Among the complaints outlined in that charge, the union accuses the district of using delaying tactics, providing false financial projections and going back on previously reached agreements during contentious discussions over compensation.
The district plans to contest all of those charges, district officials said.
The board's review of the filing is expected to take 60 days. It could either dismiss the charges or issue another complaint to the district, said Chisholm.
Contact staff writer Noelle Ibrahim at (760) 740-3517 or nibrahim@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Vista Watchdog wrote on Feb 22, 2008 5:44 AM:Watchout Polomar, I've already warned you that WASC will be next to head your way. They are looking at MCC rather closely, and hit CSUSM School of Ed a few years back too. You are certainly not ammune to their wrath. Unions can be hurt by a WASC as well as it is your members who could loos their jobs if teh school looses its acreditation. You all better get together and play nice now before WASC decides to get invovled.
Public Interest Lawyer wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:39 AM:For all the drama, these charges don't mean much. Though the employer is required to bargain over any change to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment -- Mr. Lienhart is right about that -- the government cannot impose any particular set of terms on an employer. The most that this or any government agency can do is order the employer to bargain in good faith, which, I'm sure, Palomar is willing to do anyway.
ex-union wrote on Feb 22, 2008 8:08 AM:This is a shining example of why I am ex-union. The faculty already gets a whale of a benefits package, which includes nearly free coverage of everything, and they complain about having to pay $10 for supplemental health care. Health Services is on campus for one reason, students. Faculty and staff access to it is the cherry on top of an already great deal. $10, unfair labor practices - get over it.
Wake UP wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:10 AM:Unfortunately Mr. PUBLIC LAWYER, IF Palomar was willing to bargain in good faith there would be no reason for charges to be filed. EX-UNION, there would be no need for Unions if employers were treating all units fairly and $10.00 maybe nothing, but keep adding up everything else and pretty soon you are employed working for less then you were last year, 5 years, 10 years, etc... I don't believe that when a career is started that you sign up for reverse movement. VISTA WATCHDOG, I couldn't agree more with you. My question would be why does Palomar's Administration think they are excempt or have no need for concern? They are the ones making the big bucks, the concern should not be shouldered just faculty & staff. With the news being printed since the reign of Deegan/Tortarolo and Dowd has been clouded with negative from Faculty and Staff at some point eyes need to be open and curiousities aroused. Come on community - maybe it is time we pay more attention to what is happening and act accordingly. The Administration couldn't speak highly enough about the Faculty when the Bond Measure was trying to get passed; now, it appears the "stupid" card is being played by the Administration and it keeps using it over and over. Where is the Governing Board in all this? Why have their eyes been closed and ears shut? Are they really concerned about the security of the students, community and the college (aren't they the ones who are ultimately responsible)? Aren't they elected officials and therefore accountable for the runnings of the District? Wake up Board!!! I believe Palomar is going through the Accrediation process. Aren't you concerned with what is happening?
Disappointed in Palomar's Admin wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:55 AM:Look at what a failure to consult the faculty has cost. All the administration had to do was to call a meeting with the faculty reps to consider the options. It's this kind of high-handedness that gives administrators a bad name and costs taxpayers money because of the time and resources spent to settle the aggravation. No wonder MiraCosta employees (and the smart administrators who unfortunately are no longer there) valued "collegiality"—their institutional policy of consultation—so highly.
Hannah wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:41 PM:It's not about the $10; it's that the district has implemented several such "small" take-ways without negotiating or even informing the unions. Small cracks often become huge chasms. The district has unlimited (taxpayer) funds to pay their lawyers to stall negotiations, but the unions deplete their funds and waste countless hours discovering and then trying to address the district's illegal actions. How much easier (and cheaper!) it would have been for the district to inform the union of these "small" changes; I"m pretty sure all parties would understand a $10 health care fee! The top administrative salaries get bigger and bigger, but all other employees keep losing ground. The public voted for the bond (Prop. M.) partly in faith that the college president was interested in not only shiny buildings, but quality education for the students who will occupy them. Taxpayers should be upset not with the unions and unit members, but with a district that lies, obfuscates, and recklessly wastes their money.
Marie wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:53 PM:The point here is the constant lying and unilateral actions by the Admin. If they had come to the groups like they are supposed to, they probably would have been fine with paying. But I guess the community and GOVERNING BOARD should be asking themselves, if they will lie and obscure the truth on this minor thing, what else are they lying about. That's where the true frustation of staff and faculty is. Palomar is going to end up like Mira Costa if they're not careful.
Jennifer wrote on Feb 22, 2008 2:20 PM:Do you think the union is going through all this fuss because of a $10 health fee?? While the district has unlimited monies (read: taxpayer monies) to pay lawyers to stymie negotiations, the union is forced to deplete its account and spend countless unpaid hours discovering and then addressing unfathomable breaches in collective bargaining. I"d bet that all employees would have understood paying a health service fee; what we can't comprehend is why the Palomar top administrators would risk public ill will and far more costly penalties, including accreditation, just to avoid talking with the union about "small" matters. If they can cover up "small" changes, the bigger take-backs will follow. The public voted for a $684 million bond to presumably ensure quality education for the community's students. All we have are buildings that are as hollow as our president's promises.
GFN wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:44 PM:The worst part is that there is a suit against the administration that will probably cost the college over $500 million, and for the same reason: The administration is too pig headed to listen and learn. Watch.
jvc wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:33 PM:GFN: Ditto!
are you listening trustees wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:01 PM:After the departure of a toxic president, the hiring of a new leader, and the election of two new board members, I began to have faith that Palomar could right itself and soar to even greater heights. But I loath the "if" statements -- especially when they are lies -- "if" the union had brought up the issue (lie). Add to that the promise for an increase in salary "if" the faculty helps to pass the bond issue; "if" the faculty increases enrollment by accepting more students in their already large classes; "if" the budgetary situation in Sacramento looks better; "if" Prop 92 passes. Enough. An entry-level custodian earns more in wages and benefits than an adjunct instructor with six years of college. Did you hear me trustees??? An entry level custodian earns more in wages and benefits than any adjunct professor with advanced academic degrees. Why are people surprised that Palomar could not find adjuncts willing to staff a nighttime and weekend nursing program? The program was cancelled. Yet there are 300-hundred students on a waiting list eager to join a field that desperately needs educated workers. The program was cancelled because experienced nurses are unwilling to work (as adjunct instructors) for the hourly equivalent of $30,000 a year (no benefits) when they (rightly)earn $90,000 (full benefits) a year at Tri-City. President Deegan and Governing Board, please do the honorable thing. Pay adjuncts a living wage. Negotiate in good faith. Get rid of the "ifs." To the North County Times: in the next feature article on the nursing shortage in north county, please verify my facts and let the public know why the stinginess of Palomar's Board really can become a life or death situation for our community. This fight is about so much more than $10.00 nurse visits.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement