The following emails came through to COC Part-Time Faculty United from COC 
Part-Timer Michael Ward (who posted the first of these on the California Part-time 
Faculty Association (CPFA) Listserv):

Dear Colleagues and Other Interested Persons,

I am a part-time instructor (for over three years) at College of the Canyons (COC) and I wish to follow up with some additional clarity on the issue of part-time organizing 
efforts at that campus, by offering everyone a complete copy (sans numbered margins) 
of the injunction against COC and its union, CTA (Case No. BS 26874). 

This way each one of us can make our own judgements about the facts of this case.

This injunction, in its entirety (sans line numbers in the margins) appears in the table below.
 

Evidently, there has been some confusion about what this injunction is about, as expressed by emails on the listserv.  I received a copy of the following emails on March 21; the first of these two communications (posted on the listserv) makes the following observation: "In a previous email, one person wrote: 'PERB claimed that the district and full-time faculty union had violated the intent of the collective bargaining law by refusing to give part-time faculty the opportunity to choose which union they wanted to represent them, or whether they wanted union representation at all.' "

Note that this statement is essentially correct!  The injunction orders (sub-heading 2 of the injunction) the College of the Canyons (full-time) Faculty Assocation (COCFA) and CTA not to represent the part-time faculty precisely because PERB had determined that these entities had "violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code Sections 3540 et seq., by encouraging part-time employees to join one employee organization in preference to another."  In other words, that by using the "modified Recognition Clause" (sub-heading 2 of the injunction), the COCFA/ CTA illegally removed COC part-timers' freedom of choice for their representation.

However, in answer to the email cited above, our colleague, Dian Hasson makes an opposite assertion with the following statement:

"Sandy, The PERB ruling is available (two pages long). I do not see any part of that ruling that states the above. What it says, in part, is "Based on these documents and the arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that reasonable cause exists to believe that the Defendant Santa Clarita Community College District (College of the Canyons) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). Government Code sections 3540 et seq., by encouraging part-time employees to join one employee organization in preference to another." Do you notice that neither the CCA chapter nor CTA were mentioned in that sentence? CCC/CFT claimed, in part, that some of the administrators at COC favored one union over another. It appears that the Court believes there may be substance to that claim and that is why they ordered a preliminary injunction against the District."

REBUTTAL: The Court had good reason to believe that there is sunstance to this claim.  I myself witnessed COC Vice President Phil Hartley at the adjunct orientation on January 14, 2002, as he remained quite firm in his public assertions that the COCFA was the sole representative of the college’s part-time faculty.  Indeed, the admistration clearly favored the COCFA/ CTA.  In contrast, at the adjunct orientation at Santa Barbara City College two days later, I watched as that college’s administrators stepped aside to let faculty union reps make their presentations.  It is apparent that the COC administration has some kind of partnership with its full-time faculty association and with CTA, of which its executive director Ray Barney appeared in support of COCFA, in late December 2001.

Ms. Hasson's email  continues: "In the "It is ordered " part, the court says that the district "desist from recognizing the College of the Canyons Faculty Association, CTA, NEA (CTA) as the exclusive representative for the District's part-time faculty employees...." There are several unfair practice charges against the district which PERB needs to resolve before the representation of the part-time faculty at College of the Canyons is resolved. This is a preliminary injunction--meaning that PERB has not made any decision on these matters."

REBUTTAL: Once again, Ms. Hasson is dead wrong in this statement!  PERB not only made its decision on February 14, but it took the case to the LA County Superior Court for Injuctive Relief when the COC administration refused to comply with its decision!

Ms. Hasson's email continues: "As you can see it may be difficult to get unbiased reporting from the parties involved."

REBUTTAL: Indeed! 

Ms. Hasson's email continues: "I did not respond to your email requesting an unbiased report, not because I did not think I could be unbiased, but because by the nature of my position, there is an appearance of bias. I think others involved in the process may also wish to a refrain from "unbiased" reporting. Perhaps, what you need to do is get the ruling yourself. It is case number. BS 268 742.  All in all, PERB will decide this case based upon the merits of the case. 

REBUTTAL: As I stated, PERB has made its decision!  Nevertheless, it has more work/ decisions to complete with regard to this issue.

Ms. Hasson's email continues: "If the District is found to have favored one union over another, that is unacceptable. No matter how PERB ends up deciding this case, I hope individuals refrain from "union bashing." Unfortunately, negative campaigns work in politics and in organizing but we should not add to the negative climate in which we live.  I understand that there will be another hearing in April on this matter.  Then we can expect a decision and perhaps, reasons for that decision. Hope this helps. Dian Hasson"

Like Ms. Hasson, I freely admit my bias in this matter.  In my case, however, I am biased because a wrong was committed by the COCFA and the CTA against me and my fellow part-timers at College of the Canyons, and I am more than miffed about that.  I am especially perturbed when the simple facts are misinterpreted in the "negative climate in which we live" - really, the political climate nowadays is quite tame compared to the era of the nation's founders and at other times in our history - calls for prudence are often nothing more than false claims of surface respectibility - in this matter we need to raise the level of honesty (as blunt as that may be), beyond pretensions to belles lettres intellectualism made in the name of professional decorum. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Ward

And - in response to the above email:

Michael,

Thank you for taking such a public stand on the actions of the COCFA/CTA, actions that can only be described as treachery at its worst toward the principle of freedom of representation and basic trade union principles.

I am working with Linda Cushing and may be able to come down there before the end of April.

Robert Perrone
Los Rios College Federation of Teachers
AFT Local 2279
Sacramento

MARCH 26, 2002:

The following email came through to COC Part-Time Faculty United concerning COC P-Ters' share of the state money and organizing efforts:

[Part-Time Faculty United], 

Yes, indeed, good work.  I'm glad you were able to get that note out to the CPFA listserve, which has a pretty large readership, especially among p/ters throughout the state. And the CTA has been lax, actually outright hostile, to p/ters in some of its locals and p/ters need to know this. . . 

Straight ahead. 

Homer 

MARCH 25, 2002:

The following email came through to COC Part-Time Faculty United from COC Part-Timer Chuck Whitten:

I thought you might be interested in a message I found in my mailbox this morning from Phil Hartley.  It was in all part-timers mailboxes . . .

"Date: March 21, 2002

"Re: Adjunct and Overload Pay - Equal Payments

"As you may have noticed, your March 8th paycheck reflected a change from four equal payments to four payments based on actual hours worked.  This change was made in response to concern from some faculty that the "equal" pay method did not work as well for their budget planning.  We apologize for the confusion and delay in communication regarding this change.

"However, due to the increased workload for staff and the difficulty in extracting the necessary data, it has been determined that it is not feasible to continue unequal payments.  As this process is already in motion, we plan to continue it through the Springs semester.  Also, Summer pay will continue, as always, to be based on actual hours worked.  Beginning in Fall 2002, all Fall and Spring semesters will be paid in four equal payments each semester.

Thank you for your patience and understanding."

What bullshit!  How is it possible that that the "'equal' pay method did not work as well for their budget planning."  Does this guy actually believe we're stupid enough to accept what he's saying as gospel? 

Amazing!

Chuck

Thanks, Chuck - WE AGREE!

MARCH 23 - 25, 2002:

The following emails came through to COC Part-Time Faculty United from COC Part-Timer Michael Ward (who posted the first of these on the California Part-time Faculty Association (CPFA) Listserv):

Dear Colleagues and Other Interested Persons,

I wish to express some clarity on the issue of part-time organizing efforts at College of the Canyons (COC).  As a part-time instructor for more than three years at COC, I am aware of the political landscape at that campus, and the history of its part-time representation (or rather, its lack of). 

For more than two decades the California Teachers Association (CTA)-affiliated College of the Canyons (full-time) Faculty Association (COCFA) consistently refused to represent its part-time faculty.  Due to this extended period of CTA rejection, we finally sought help from the AFT, which came to our aid to organize as an independent negotiating unit.  To our surprise, our efforts were met with a detestable and duplicitous series of stratagems, coordinated by the COCFA/ CTA and the administration of the Santa Clarita Community College District, to thwart our efforts.  By the misapplication of the "unit modification" provision in the law – something designed to merge a few members into a union – the college district administration and the COCFA/ CTA crafted a scheme to induct several hundred of us into their union without soliciting our advice or consent.  Such a corrupt bargain sought to make the COCFA/ CTA the sole representative of COC part-timers in all future negotiations, which would have negotiated away any equitable gains we might possibly make, and perpetuate a system of part-time exploitation.  The involuntary placement of COC part-time faculty against our will into their organization was illegal, according to a February 14, 2002 ruling by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in Sacramento.  The PERB ruling was later confirmed on March 21, by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, in the form of an injunction against the continued claims of the COCFA/ CTA to be our sole representatives.  As a member of a group of COC adjunct faculty members seeking the right to our own self-determination, my (and our) assertion all along was that the CTA and the COCFA was wrong.  I must admit my elation with receipt of confirmation to this assertion from PERB and the courts, considering the difficulties that we have encountered and strength of the opposition against us to date. 

Rather than wallow in the obscurities of legal minutia that tend only to detract from the central issue at hand – our democratic right of free choice – I assert that the facts are plain and simple.  The COC administration and the CTA do not have part-time faculty interests at heart, but rather, their own self-serving objectives.  At stake is the college district's share of the $57 million that Governor Davis earmarked specifically for part-time faculty equity.  The law related to the allocation of these funds specifies their disbursement by the district once negotiations with a part-time faculty bargaining unit are made.  This, then, becomes the real crux of the matter; by becoming the sole bargaining agent, the COCFA/ CTA would be in a position to ensure that the college district’s needs supersede those of the part-time faculty that it supposedly intended (or pretended) to represent.  Such duplicity is disgraceful, and the COCFA and the CTA should be ashamed of their actions.  Considering that the administration’s actions are management decisions, it is understandable (though still objectionable) that they should pursue such a plan.  The CTA, on the other hand, as a union, needs to explain itself.  Part time faculty become compromised and alienated with great regularity.  Though we hold the same degrees and perform the same work as our equally qualified full-time colleagues, we are not paid fairly and do not share in the benefits that they enjoy.  Labor unions have traditionally and historically been the advocates and friends of part-time faculty members in the community colleges.  Therefore, I am dismayed with CTA's conduct over the past several months at COC, and hope that their apparent disregard of part-time faculty issues does not portend future austerity for part-timers.

Sincerely,

Michael K. Ward

The following response to the message above was forwarded to COC Part-Time Faculty United:

Hi Michael,

I have read your COC history and I agree with your assessments in general.  The basic history as you present it has been on the CPFA Listserv so I don't think you need to be concerned about misinformation, and I am glad that you have discovered us. I am forwarding this to our webmaster in the hopes he can get you on the listserv as soon as possible.

There are two aspects of your history that, while I believe I do understand your feelings and intent, might be interpreted as hyperbole.

First, while collusion between the COC FT unit and the COC Administration is a possibility, and the circumstances are quite damning, there is also the possibility that their interests just happened to coincide on this and that there really was no conspiracy. You may have evidence to belie this but so far, I have heard none. I am only concerned that we (PT faculty) remain as professional as possible under difficult circumstances so we are not dragged down to the level of our adversaries.

The second point I hope you will consider is to recall that there is a great deal of difference between the state unions (CTA/CCA, in this case) and the locals (COCFA here). They are legally and organizationally separate and independent agents, albeit affiliated. Sometimes there is little the state organizations can do in the face of rash local action except work for damage control.

My experience of both the major state unions has been that, while not perfect, they are strong allies, each with many very good points, and each with some blemishes. Also, there have been bad actors at the local level in both camps. Be careful of hasty generalizations. They can create unneeded conflict when what we all need are allies and strong coalitions. CTA/CCA and CPFA, have so far taken the strongest principled and professional stand at the state level, fully supporting the principle of 100% pro-rata, "equal pay AND equal work," vis-a-vis PT parity with FT faculty. We need to get the same level of commitment from the other state faculty organizations, and we need it soon. The definitions of parity are now taking place in the local arenas throughout the state. CCCSF/AFT has also taken this principled stand, but CFT/CCC has not yet, to my knowledge. COC PT faculty, as a new player in the CFT/CCC scene, can help push in the right direction.

However, while fighting your local battles, and calling on your colleagues for help. I hope you will think carefully about the above. If I have the facts wrong, please correct me. I need to be as well informed as possible to be most effective.  If I can be of help, please let me know. I, and CPFA, well do what we can. While we don't take sides in local union battles, we do try to facilitate win-win solutions whenever possible.

Ciao,

Chris Storer

And - in response to Chris's asertions:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your sensitive and articulate response to my request for help placing a statement on the listserv.  I appreciate and agree with your call for professionalism and prudence with regard to what might appear as strident arguments, but I assure you, these are not made without careful thought having been given to them.

With regard to your first point with regrad to what that might appear as “hyperbole;” the issue of possible collusion between the College of the Canyons (COC) full-time faculty unit (COCFA) and the administration, this point was clearly borne out in documents submitted to PERB and the court.  Moreover, I myself witnessed COC Vice President Phil Hartley at the adjunct orientation on January 14, 2002, as he remained quite firm in his assertions that the COCFA was the sole representative of the college’s part-time faculty.  In contrast, at the adjunct orientation at Santa Barbara City College two days later, I watched as that college’s administrators stepped aside to let faculty union reps make their presentations.  It appears obvious to me that the COC administration has some kind of partnership with its full-time faculty association and with CTA, of which its executive director Ray Barney appeared in support of COCFA, in late December 2001.

This last statement addresses your second point with regard to the legal and organizational differences between CTA/CCA and the COCFA.  Different as they may be, I have only experienced their concerted efforts to thwart my efforts, and those of many of my part-time colleagues at COC.  Expressions of “damage control” should be limited to displays of the separateness of these entities; so far that has not been the image shown to part-timers at COC.  If I sound angry, it is because I am; I agree that we need to remain united in the effort to attain 100% pro-rata.  I sincerely hope that all the unions affiliated with CCC part-time faculty would remain in concert with each other to that end.  My experience at COC, however, indicates that the goals of the CTA are not different than those of the COCFA; there, the principles that you describe apparently flag before the needs of the full-time faculty unit and the administration.

Acting prudent certainly has its merits.  But then, as William Blake observed in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" (1790-93): “Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.”  In the face of the strident opposition that COC administrative hacks have doggedly placed before us in our attempt to win our democratic right to self-determination, we don’t have time for too much prudence, though we continue to act with clear heads.

With clarity and sincerity,

Michael Ward

And - the following response to Chris's assertions comes from an AFT/CFT rep:

. . .Chris is really copping out big-time isn't he? Someone might want to let him know that CTA chapters are NOT legally and organizationally separate entities or "independent agents" of CTA. All the dues go to CTA, not to the local. They are CHAPTERS of the mothership, not independent affiliated organizations.

It is interesting to note the issue regarding 100% pro-rata pay. Has this even come to the CCC? Since I'm negotiating parity right now, this is good information for me to think about.

Pat Lerman

MARCH 22, 2002:

The following emails came through to COC Part-Time Faculty United concerning COC P-Ters' organizing efforts:

Great news on the ruling.  Hang in there.

Mark Anderson.

A second email follows (this was posted on the California Part-time Faculty Association (CPFA) Listserv):

Friends and Colleagues

Apparently there is still some confusion about what's been happening at College of the Canyons.  As many of you know, I have been assisting COC part-time faculty in obtaining solid and aggressive union representation there since September 2001.  Let me set the record straight.

Frankly, I have never seen a more tangible example of utter disregard for part-time faculty in recent years than the actions taken by the College of the Canyons district administration at the request of the full-time faculty union there.  Their actions in concert were designed to thwart approximately 380 part-time faculty members from democratically deciding whether they wanted a union, and, if so, what union they wanted.  These actions between the district and the full-timers union were kept secret 
from the part-timers and were designed to eliminate the free choice of part-time faculty members.  Their intention  was to force part-time faculty, without their knowledge or consent, into the existing full-time faculty union which had refused to represent part-time faculty there for the past 24 years. 

Here are the facts:

Since its inception in 1977, the COC full-time faculty union has represented only full-time faculty members.  In the summer of 2001, the 150-member full-time faculty union executed a new multi-year contract with the district which did not attempt to represent the 380 COC part-time faculty.

In September, October, and November 2001, unrepresented part-time faculty at COC were actively involved in an organizing drive by AFT to form their own part-time faculty union.  They were holding meetings, sending out literature and signing authorization cards asking AFT to become their exclusive representative in the district.

During this time, although they had the legal right (and I believe the responsibility) to do so, there was no attempt by the full-timers union to communicate in any way with the part-time faculty in order discern what the part-timers wanted or to obtain their support. Not one flyer was distributed, not one meeting was held, and not one authorization card was signed.

In mid-November, COCFA, the full-time faculty union, asked the COC BOT to put the part-timers into their union without any proof of support by the part-timers.  No notice whatsoever was sent out by either the district or the full-timers union informing part-time faculty of their plan.  At the last minute, AFT learned of the plan through officers of the campus classified union who said that the full-timers union were telling them they  had "a done deal" with the district.  AFT addressed the BOT and informed the trustees that this agreement proposed by the full-time faculty union accompanied by no show of support was both illegal and unfair to the part-time faculty, that part-timers had the right to choose their own representative.  AFT said that if the district executed this agreement at the request of the full-time faculty union, they would be subverting the intent of the collective bargaining law, the basis which was free choice by employees.  The following morning the district announced that they had put the part-timers into the full-time faculty union.

The first communiation of any kind to the part-timers from the full-time faculty union was to inform them that they had just been subsumed into the full-timers union.  Part-timers responded with disbelief that this could happen without their knowledge or consent while they were in the midst of making their own decision about who they wanted to represent them.  As outrage built, the part-time faculty representative on the COC Academic Senate called an informational meeting and requested presentations by both AFT and CTA.  At first the president of the full-timers union ordered her to cancel the meeting, but finally agreed to attend with a state union representative.  Part-timers who asserted that they had the right to make their own choice were told by that union representative not to listen to "these jerks and idiots from AFT" that "there's nothing you can do about it.  It's a done deal."  The full-timers unon president subsequently said to part-timers who complained that actions were unfair, "Life's not fair. Get over it."

To preserve the right of part-time faculty to have free choice in the selection of their own union representative, AFT filed an unfair labor practice charge against the district.  When the president of the full-time faculty union announced in early January that it was her intention to go into negotiations to bargain on behalf of part-time faculty once she could "figure out what the issues were", AFT also filed a request for injunction to PERB, asking that the full-timers union be prevented from illegally acting as exclusive bargaining agent.  Despite the assertion by the full-timers union that "we have always looked out for the interests of part-timers", AFT had identifed at least $275,000 which had not flowed to part-timers at COC in state equity funds, COLA, and a pay increase equal to that which the full-timers negotiated for themselves in July.  Without injunction to prevent further injustice, part-timers were in danger of being coerced by a prospective "sweetheart deal" between the district and the full-timers union using the money which had been unreasonably withheld from the part-timers all along.

PERB in its request for the injunction they obtained from the Los Angeles County Superior Court this week charged a  presumption of  "unlawful recognition" conferred by the district on the full-time faculty union, and that the "District violated the doctrine of strict neutrality by entering into an agreement with a union that lacked employee support."  In a 16-page brief bolstered by oral arguments by General Counsel Robert Thompson, PERB said, "A fundamental principle of the EERA is the right to employee free choice. . .Attempts to manipulate or destroy employee free choice are routinely met with requests for injunctive relief."  Further, "Continued (full-time faculty union) representation would only allow it to take further advantage of its illegally gained position. . .To eliminate the right of free choice is to eradicate a basic EERA right, and such action forces employees to both financially and emotionally support an organization they neither selected not sponsored. . . Undermining employee free choice strikes at the heart of PERB's representation process.  If PERB's process doesn't guarantee free choice, it becomes a meaningless procedure." 

In my opinion, the district and the full-time faculty union at COC should be ashamed of their actions.  Not only did they act in utter disregard for the law, but they acted with utter disdain for the part-timers.  This is where the abstract concepts of freedom and democracy become very real, at least for the part-timers at COC.  My questions are: what are the district and the full-time faculty union so afraid of?  And why are they still fighting tooth and nail in court to prevent part-time faculty from making their own choice?

Linda Cushing

THANK YOU, Linda!

MARCH 21, 2002:

The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), and COC Part-Time faculty received a favorable ruling on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - the INJUNCTION against COCFA and the COC Administration is granted! - this is according to The Honorable David Yaffee of the Los Angeles Superior Court in the case of PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Plaintiff, v. SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (COLLEGE OF THE CANYONS).

THE FULL TEXT OF THIS RULING AGAINST THE "DEFENDANT DISTRICT" CAN BE FOUND ABOVE.

An additional hearing with the Los Angeles County Superior Court to hear continued appeals by the Santa Clarita Community College District, and additional details that need to be worked out, has been set for
April 19/ 20, 2002.

Seeing through their ill-formed and misleading arguments, theLos Angeles County Superior Court backedPERB in its request for an injunction to stop the COCFA/ CTAfrom representing the COC Part-Time faculty.

MARCH 21, 2002:

The following emails were received by COC P-T Faculty United:

Yesterday an LA Superior Court judge declared he would issue an 
injunction on behalf of the COC PTers by today or tomorrow.  The 36-48 
hour delay gives the district and CTA attorneys a chance to submit 
objections to the injunction language which PERB offered to the judge.

The district and CTA attorneys fought like hell.  CTA's major arguement 
was that this decision would damage the reputation of CTA .  Otherwise 
their attorney mumbled and was essentially inarticulate (he was finding 
it extremely difficult to justify the indefensible actions of his 
client.)  At least he reflected their position honestly - all they're 
concerned with is their own reputation. 

The district's position was that this injumction would hurt the PTers, 
because PTers would now no longer have access to the grievance procedure. 
Further, they claimed that the pay increase the district unilaterally 
instituted for PTers before the beginning of the school year (from the 
$57 mil equity fund) might have to be rescinded if the agreement between 
the district and the CTA FT union were abrogated.  Reason: the FTers 
union negotiated this for the PTers with the district (a lie!) and the 
new pay scale was referenced/codified in their representation agreement 
with the district.  In fact, the PTers' raise pre-dated the back-door 
deal made with CTA by about three months.  So, the district was 
effectively threatening to reverse the PTers' pay raise if the judge 
issued the injunction and rescinded the agreement which illegally gave 
the CTA FTers union recognition as exclusive bargaining agent.

PERB argued that the unit modification provision of the law where the 
district and union could add employees to the bargaining unit without a 
show of support was intended to add "two or three or ten employees to an 
existing employee organization which was dominant numerically."  It was 
never intended as a means to add nearly 400 employees to a previous unit 
of 150 without the new unit members' consent.  Unit modification in this 
manner was not designed to be more than a minor housekeeping procedure. 

The minimum we got from the court is an injunction requested by PERB on 
behalf of the PTers, indicating the district and the CTA FT faculty union 
violated the intent of the collective bargaining law.  It will order the 
district and FT faculty union not to negotiate or act on behalf of the 
PTers.  The most we would hope for is recission of the illegal agreement 
removing the FTers union exclusive bargaining unit status.

If you want a quote, talk to COC PTers Michael Ward (805/648-5852), Chuck 
Whitten (661/274-0779) or Beverly Cope (661/259-7421).

The other good news is that apparently we are getting a PERB "expedited" 
hearing on the major unfair labor practice charges.  We are hopeful that 
this hearing will end the whole legal fight and free us up  to collect 
the remaining cards we need to trigger a bona fide election. 

I fully expect CTA to begin carding immediately, so we get into an even 
more confusing situation for the PTers in the short term.  Stay tuned.

Linda Cushing

. . .and the next related email to Sandy Baringer, California Part-time Faculty Association (CPFA) News editor:

Sandy, I was at court yesterday.  Here's where things are.

Yesterday the Los Angeles Superior Court declared its intent to issue an 
immediate injunction against the College of the Canyons district 
administration and the CTA full-time faculty union. This injunction was 
sought by PERB on behalf of the COC part-time faculty.  PERB claimed that 
the district and full-time faculty union had violated the intent of the 
collective bargaining law by refusing to give part-time faculty the 
opportunity to choose which union they wanted to represent them, or 
whether they wanted union representation at all.  Injunctive relief 
sought by PERB is rare, and was brought on behalf of the COC part-timers 
to prevent "irreparable harm" from occuring before the original charges 
are heard.  By seeking injunction against the district, PERB stated that 
there is a presumption that they will sustain the ULP brought by AFT 
against the district to be heard next month.

Linda Cushing

The following emails came to COC Part-Time Faculty United from a COC Part-Timer (who shall remain anonymous):

Dear Part-Time Faculty United,

I also teach at LA community colleges and I wanted to know if COC will be offiering any type of health benefits.  At LA if you have taught for 3 semesters you can purchase the medical insurance, then get reinbursed for 50% at the end of the fiscal year.  I think COC should offer a similiar policy.  Thanks

A.

COC Part-Time Faculty United's response:

. . .Thank you for your email inquiry.

Yes, health insurance will be on the agenda in negotiations - but first we need to organize.  The Full-Time faculty organization (COCFA) will soon try to win the Part-Time faculty over to their side, but we assert that we will acheive far more gains by organizing seprately.  AFT has successfully won similar health benefits (and dental and optical too) at the Ventura Community College District.  We will definitely work on getting these things at COC - you can count on it!  But first we need to organize.  If you are willing to help us to that end, please let us know.

Feel free to contact the following COC PTers about getting involved in this organizing effort: Michael Ward history240@worldnet.att.net (805/648-5852), Chuck Whitten whitten3@earthlink.net (661/274-0779), Beverly Cope BeverlyCope@aol.com (661/259-7421), Paul Lin mathplin@yahoo.com, or Marcy Bregman (our Part-Timers' rep in the COC Academic Senate)bregtama@attbi.com.

In Solidarity,

Part-Time Faculty United
cocptsolidarity@worldnet.att.net
1-800-662-1911

And a second email:

Dear Part-time Faculty United:

I am currently an Adjunct Instructor . . .at COC.  I just wanted to know what you think about the fact that we haven't yet been paid for the FLEX hours we participated in over winter break.  We were guaranteed 3 hours pay that won't be paid until hopefully "sometime in April."  I hate to make a fuss, but honestly I don't make that much money, and this check could come in handy.

Shouldn't COC at least have notified us about the delay?

Thanks,

M.

COC Part-Time Faculty United's response:

. . .Thank you for your inquiry.  This is the kind of thing that we will be able to address once we are organized!  The COC adminsitration, up until now, has not considered part-time interests, and has recently made a number of changes regarding schedules, pay rates, times of payment, and frequency of payments, etc. WITHOUT our abilty to have a say in such matters.  Then, when we tried to orgainize (after being rejected for more than two decades), there was suddenly an interest, expressed by our induction into their union (COCFA/ CTA) against our will so that we would not be able to actively pursue OUR interests.  That having been said, you (and many other part-timers) deserve redress in the matter of your not having been paid for your flex hours (especially considering the fact that the full-time faculty already received credit for their time).  At this point, we part-timers still have no ear in the administration because we are not YET organized. As of today (3-21-02), the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in our favor by denying COC its claim to be our sole representative - THIS IS A BIG STEP.  Now we must organize.  There will soon be a vote, and you can speed up that process by signing a card declaring your choice for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT/ CFT).

We understand that this information does not help you in solving your immediate problem - but we assure you it offers the most sound solution to any future abuses by an absolutist administration that has a record of pushing part-timers around.  Please check (if you haven't already done so) with payroll; ask to speak with Marina Barker (extension 3418) you may find her especially helpful.  Please also keep us informed about your progress, and we will post information related to this on the COC Part-Time Solidarity web page, once we find out.  This problem needs to taken care of soon.

Feel free to contact the following COC PTers about getting involved in this organizing effort: Michael Ward history240@worldnet.att.net (805/648-5852), Chuck Whitten whitten3@earthlink.net (661/274-0779), Beverly Cope BeverlyCope@aol.com (661/259-7421), Paul Lin mathplin@yahoo.com, or Marcy Bregman (our Part-Timers' rep in the COC Academic Senate)bregtama@attbi.com.

In Solidarity,

Part-Time Faculty United
cocptsolidarity@worldnet.att.net
1-800-662-1911

MARCH 20, 2002:

The injunction hearing with the Los Angeles County Superior Court in the case of the PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Plaintiff, v. SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (COLLEGE OF THE CANYONS), Defendant that had been set for March 22 (and moved up to March 20), has been delayed to April 19/ 20, 2002.

It is the guess of COC Part-Time Solidarity that Dr. Hartley and the COC Administration will claim this delay to be their victory as they did the last time (click on the "rebuttal" link for details), when it is simply another delay, though admitedly, it blocks Part-Time efforts to organize.  Apparenty an organized Part-Time faculty remain a threat to some undefined objective of the COCAdminstration.  Meanwhile, COCPart-Time faculty have yet to negotiate for and receive their money, that was sent to the COCAdministration last year!

SEE BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL RELATED INFORMATION AND STATS - PARTICULARLY LOOK AT THE EMAILS DATED MARCH 13, 2002

The following emails came through to COC Part-Time Faculty United concerning COC P-Ters' share of the state money and organizing efforts:

Folks

I just spoke to Phil Hartley this afternoon.  I asked him whether the COC part-timers' portion of the $57 mil had already been distributed onto your pay schedule.  He said, "yes."

This means there should be no rush to the bargaining table as, according to him, the money has already been spent.  According to law, we DO need to negotiate a definition of parity with the district by February or March of 2003.  It was implied in the district's arguments to PERB that AFT's legal action would unfairly impact PTers as their money would be held up (nearly $500,000).  However, on a careful second reading, there is no literal claim of this.  It is just an insinuation.

This brings up another question: where did all the money go which should have flowed to the PTers?  You know that in other districts, part-time pay jumped from $5 to $10 an hour, but didn't your pay only go up 10% or $4 an hour?

A way to do a quick calculation of what everyone should receive is to
take the actual COC PT equity allotment ($475,746) and divide it by the number of part-timers (360).  That should give you roughly what an average PTer should earn over and above what (s)he would have made under the old salary schedule during the course of one school year ($1322 for two semesters).  Generally, in other districts with which I am familiar, the average part-timer teaches a 35% load (a 40% load would be six lecture hours per week, so 35% would be 5.25 hours).  Multiply the 5.25 hours by 17.5 (the number of weeks in a semester) and you get 91.88 (the number of hours in a semester at a 35% load.)  Divide 91.88 into $661, and you get $7.19.  This is the boost in your hourly rate you should have gotten if all the money sent down from the state was/is distributed to the PTers.

Now, remember, these calculations only address the state equity funds.

The additional question which should be asked is where is our COLA and growth money - which should have also been added onto the PT faculty schedule.  And why shouldn't we have gotten the same kind of raise the FTers just got (wasn't it a little over 6% total?)  So, add the $7.19 an hour to your starting hourly rate, and then multiply it by 6%.  THIS is closer to the correct figure per hour you should be getting as a part-time instructor if all the money you are due has been applied.

Can you tell me how these figures compare with your actual salary now?

Linda

And - here is the second email:

Hello, Folks

I am forwarding on the below email which responds to the growing interest in what is happening to the part-timers at College of the Canyons.  I believe that part of righting a huge wrong - keeping nearly 400 unrepresented part-time faculty from having any say in which union THEY want to represent them - is to shine as much daylight as possible on bad behavior.

We are presently awaiting a hearing in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 20th and we have our fingers crossed as to the outcome.  This is a hearing on a request for injunction brought by PERB on behalf of AFT and the College of the Canyons part-time faculty .  The good news is that by agreeing to carry forth our request for injunction against the district, PERB has made a preliminary favorable decision on the merits of
AFT's unfair labor practice charge.

But, if PERB does not prevail in its request for injunction, it is problematic if we can continue.  As you know, unfair labor practice charges take many months to be heard and a decision could take as much as a year or more.  The reason we requested an injunction carried forward by PERB is because without it the illegally-coronated "exclusive bargaining agent", the CTA full-time faculty union, would immediately move into negotiations with the district on behalf of part-time faculty.  I would expect this to result in a quick "sweetheart deal", securing something for part-timers which would effectively seal the full-timers' union illegal status, and making it virtually impossible for us to ultimately rescind the relationship and the gains.  After all, by our calculations there is at least $275,000 which the district has retained in COLA and $57 mil equity funds that should have already flowed to COC part-timers.

So, much is on the line here for the College of the Canyons part-time faculty.  Further, this now has ramifications for Victor Valley part-timers whose BOT and CTA full-time faculty union just executed the same kind of back-door deal.  When asked by a Victor Valley BOT member why the full-time faculty union couldn't at least "send out a postcard" to see whether part-timers wanted CTA to represent them, the union president said, "We don't need to do that.  We work with these people every day.  We KNOW what they want."  The paternalism by union leaders who for 20 years didn't want anything to do with part-time faculty is palpable.

The email below is from the core leadership group of College of the Canyons part-time faculty.  They have constructed a website which is updated frequently and chronicles their struggle. I would encourage you to check it out and express your support for their valiant battle against both their district administration and the CTA full-time faculty union.

Without the support of CFT and AFT, these faculty members would never have been able to defend themselves.  I am proud of our leadership for taking up the fight on their behalf.  We are hopeful that PERB will be successful next week in court.

Linda

THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION (AND THE CLEAR MATH AS OPPOSED TO HARTLEY'S FUZZY ARITHMETIC) - WE LOVE YOU LINDA!

MARCH 12, 2002:

COLLEGE of the CANYONS Full-Time FACULTY ASSOCIATION (COCFA)SEEKS A SETTLEMENT with the AMERICAN FEDERATION of TEACHERS/ AFT, BUT REFUSES TO COMPROMISE!  On March 12, 2002, the COCFA and their affiliate, the California Teachers Association met with REPRESENTATION of CHOICE for COCPART-TIME Faculty,the AMERICAN FEDERATION of TEACHERS/ AFT.  The outcome of this conference was that there was no outcome, due to COCFA's intransigence and determination not to let COCPart-Time Faculty to organize independently.

DESPITE MANY ASSURANCES MADE BY COLLEGE OF THE CANYONS (COC) VICE PRESIDENT PHIL HARTLEY TO "ABIDE" BY ANY RULING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB) WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY COCPART-TIME FACULTY, THE COCADMINISTRATION AND FULL-TIME FACULTY ASSOCIATION (COCFA) CONTINUE TO OBSTRUCT PART-TIME ATTEMPTS TO ORGANIZE, BY OPPOSING THE VERY PERB RULING THAT THEY PROMISED TO SUPPORT!  In his letter dated March 7, 2002, PHIL HARTLEY states that"PERB and the Courts will ultimately resolve these legal arguments."PERBhasALREADY(February 14) made its resolution AGAINST theCOCFAand theCOCADMINISTRATIONand IN FAVOR ofCOCPART-TIME FACULTY.  Nevertheless, the COCAdminstration remains intransigent! THEREFORE, IN THE FACE OF SUCH INJUSTICE, the STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD IS ITSELF REPRESENTING COLLEGE OF THE CANYONSPART-TIME FACULTY IN OPPOSITION to the COLLEGE OF THE CANYONS ADMINISTRATION and ITS FULL-TIME FACULTY ASSOCIATION in LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT!

In his letter dated March 7, 2002 (CLICK HERE TO GO TO A REBUTTAL OF RECENT COCFA MAILERS), COC VICE PRESIDENT PHIL HARTLEY asserts that "College of the Canyons will unltimately abide by the final rulings of these agencies [Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and the Los Angeles County Superior Court]. "The PROOF will be in the Pudding. Let the record to date show the duplicitous nature of Dr. Hartley and the COC Administration regarding the issue of letting PART-TIME FACULTYCHOOSE their own representation, which, after all, is the ONLY ISSUE at hand!  Therefore, standing in SOLIDARITY as COC's PART-TIME FACULTY, we say to Dr. Hartley and the COC (Full-Time) Faculty Association (COCFA): LET OUR PEOPLE CHOOSE!

MARCH 4, 2002:

Obviously, the COCFA and the COCAdministrationdo not intend to comply with PERB's ruling.  Their duplicity is APPALLING!

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL OF SOLIDARITY EXCERPT CAME THROUGH TODAY:

Keep up the good fight!!!!  You have to prevail in the end!  (It is truly discouraging when the people we most count on to be reasonable and just -- qualities that we want to believe will be the consequence of education or else why engage in this enterprise at all -- are vicious and mean spirited.  But don't let the @$#%&*^%$s get you down!)

Gus Goldstein

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL OF SOLIDARITY EXCERPT CAME THROUGH THIS EVENING:

Solution the address listed was too long.  Just stop at the cocptunited.html word.  IE, leave off the second address.

Its a great site! Congratulations to this campus for a well designed web
page!

Lynn Averill

Thanks, Lynn!  We'll work on amending that address - it IS a long one!

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL OF SOLIDARITY EXCERPT CAME THROUGH THIS EVENING:

TO THE LISTSERV:

I received the message below of the continuing struggle of the part-time
faculty at the College of the Canyons in their attempts to organize their
own
union. Please read and lend them encouragement.

Margaret Quan
California Part-time Faculty Association

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL OF SOLIDARITY EXCERPT CAME THROUGH THIS EVENING:

I know of your struggle and you have my full support. Let me know if you need any Info or research. I just sent Linda Cushing some new comparative salary data. Santa Clarita reports also that they have 151 (sic) classified administrators on salary??? on top of their 12 high paid educational administrators. They also have quite low faculty salaries compared to their ed administrators, and compared to the rest of the state.

Ciao,

Chris Storer

De Anza College, Philosophy

California Part-time Faculty Association
Legislative Analyst

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL OF SOLIDARITY EXCERPT CAME THROUGH THIS EVENING:

From AFT Local 1931 in the San Diego Community College District, I send you
best wishes and good faith in your struggle.  Perhaps it would be effective
to put the website and/or phone numbers of the District and the Full timers
union out here so your supports could let them know how we feel about their
actions.

Mark C. Anderson.
part-timer at Miramar College

COC ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDANT AND VP PHIL HARTLEY HAD ASSURED CONCERNED PART-TIME FACULTY at THEIR ORIENTATION MEETING (JANUARY 14, 2002) that INDEED the COCFA and the COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION WOULD "ABIDE" BY the PERB RULING, WHATEVER its OUTCOME.  ON February 14th PERB FOUND in FAVOR of the COC PART-TIME FACULTY.  DESPITE this PERB RULING, the COC ADMINISTRATION REMAINS DETERMINED TO BLOCK PART-TIME EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE.

AS A RESULT of the COC ADMINISTRATION'S INTRANSIGENCE,PERB FOUND it NECESSARY to TAKE this CASE THEMSELVES and REPRESENT the PART-TIME FACULTY at COC, in a HIGHLY UNUSUAL MOVE.  THEREFORE, PERB has SUBMITTED a COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF to the LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (entered on February 25, 2002) in the case of the PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Plaintiff, v. SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (COLLEGE OF THE CANYONS), Defendant.  Using STALLING measures and CLAIMING not to have known ANYTHING about the PART-TIMER'S COMPLAINT against them (RECALL THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PUBLICLY ACKOWLEDGED THE COMPLAINT AT THE PART-TIME FACULTY ORIENTATION, JANUARY 14, 2002!), an injunction hearing has been set for March 22, 2002 [As of March 12, this date has been moved up to March 20].

Pursuant to the court's request, the district has assured the court at the FEBRUARY 26TH hearing that they WILL NOT represent COC PART-TIME FACULTY in any negotiations as long as there remains a CHALLENGE to their original claim as adjunct faculty representatives. CAN THEY BE TRUSTED?  REMAIN CRAFTY AND DUPLICITOUS IN THEIR EVERY ACTION!