[ Home ] [ September, 2000 ] [ November, 2000 ] [ February, 2001 ] [ April, 2001 ] [ June, 2001 ] [ December, 2001 ] [ May, 2002 ] [ June, 2002 ] [ October, 2002 ] [ November, 2002 ] [ December, 2002 ] [ February, 2003 ] [ June, 2003 ] [ May, 2003 ] [ September, 2003 ] [ January, 2004 ] [ February, 2004 ] [ March, 2004 ] [ April, 2004 ] [ May-June 2004 ] [ September, 2004 ] [ October, 2004 ] [ November, 2004 ] [ January, 2005 ] [ February, 2005 ] [ March-April, 2005 ] [ May-June, 2005 ] [ September, 2005 ] [ March, 2006 ] [ June, 2006 ] [ October, 2006 ] [ November, 2006 ] [ January, 2007 ] [ March, 2007 ]

ROEA REPORTER

NEW CONTRACT RATIFIED

On January 7th, we ratified the tentative agreement. On January 8th, the School Board adopted the new contract.

There was a healthy turnout for the ratification vote with approximately 375 members voting. The final tally was 300 yes votes and 53 no votes. The ballots from one of our schools had to be negated by the Elections Committee as the number of ballots in the green bucket did not match the number of signatures on the voting list.

My hearty thanks to our bargaining team. Stuart Asch, Vince Caruso, Susan Cox, Linda Flynn, Barbara Pollis, and Tom Steeby persevered until 3:00 AM on Wednesday, December 3rd (the day began for the team on Tuesday, December 2nd at 9:00 AM) in order to get the job done. Our Uniserv Director, Paul Chambers, stayed even a little bit later, finalizing details with Mr. Shorkey and state mediator Micki Czerniacki. And my hearty thanks to our members who supported the team with red shirts, black buttons, and backing us up at School Board meetings. It takes a village to produce a contract. We have a great village.

Sid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRACT QUESTION & ANSWER

by Sidney Kardon

ROEA members gathered in the Kimball cafeteria after school on December 11th to learn about their tentative contract agreement from their bargaining team. (The tentative agreement was ratified by our members on January 7th and approved by the School Board on January 8th.) A discussion about changes in health care coverage was especially lively for the 187 teachers in attendance. Some of the questions answered by Sid Kardon, Paul Chambers and Stuart Asch are listed below:

Q. Would this contract be retroactive?
A. Yes, it would be retroactive to September 1, 2003.
Q. Are there any changes to Professional Development requirements?
A. Yes, beginning in their fourth year, requirements for probationary teachers would be the same as those for tenured teachers.
Q. Does this tentative agreement provide better notice of open positions?
A. Yes, it provides for a significant improvement in that area.
Q. How much release time would be provided for our ROEA president?
A. Two clock hours (120 minutes) per school day.

The following questions pertain to possible changes in health insurance: 

Q. How would a change to MESSA Choices be handled?
A. A specific enrollment period would be announced and teachers would be covered by the previous plan until the new plan is in place. (The change in plan will go into effect on February 1st.)
Q. What would be the additional charge for coverage by Super Care I?
A. We don't know yet. The amount will depend on factors such as the number of people who enroll as individual coverage and the number who enroll as family coverage. 
Q. Why did the bargaining team agree to the extra charge for Super Care I?
A. Because the entire team thinks MESSA Choices is an excellent plan.
Q. How will I know if my favorite doctor is a participating provider for MESSA Choices?
A. Check the provider directory at www.MESSA.org to find out if your doctor belongs.
Q. What should I do if my doctor is not part of the MESSA Choices system?
A. Ask your physician to call 1-800-822-2761 to become part of the plan.
Q. What is the MESSA Choices mental health limit?
A. There is no specific limit on mental health. However, mental health is 'managed care.' This means that the number of contacts with a service provider depends on the nature of the problem and the recommendation of the provider as to how many contacts are necessary for successful treatment.
Q. How do I get referred to a specialist under the Choices plan?
A. If the specialist is in the network you don't need a referral. If a network doctor refers you to a non-network specialist, that specialist is now considered to be in the network since you were referred by a network provider.
Q. What about Dental, Vision and Long Term Disability coverage?
A. They would stay the same as in the previous contract.
Q. Would my pre-existing condition be covered by the Choices plan?
A. Yes, your pre-existing condition would be covered and a six month transition period is provided for anyone in a specific plan of treatment for serious illness.
Q. What if I try the MESSA Choices plan and don't like it?
A. You can switch back to Super Care I during the next enrollment period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE POWER OF GRIEVANCES

Grievances have a bad reputation, but they are the keystone in the protection of our contractual rights. The reason for the bad reputation is that administrators portray grievances as an a priori act of hostility and challenge. They are partially correct: a grievance is a challenge to their authority to do as they wish in areas addressed by the contract. The entire contract is a curtailment of managerial authority by design. Before union contracts, a teacher's pay, benefits, and conditions of work were entirely defined by administrative whim. Teachers were subject to pay fluctuations and capricious discharge. What constituted a dischargeable offense? Let's start out with something really serious like conception. If you became pregnant, chances are that you would not be around for the next semester. We don't have to go back very far in time to see such discharges. The early sixties are as far back as we need to look. Unions created a sea change in our rights to job security and economic fairness.

The incorrect part of how administrators view grievances is as an act of hostility. Grievances are a formal presentation by the union that in our view a teacher's contractual rights have been violated. The grievance procedure is a process that helps to define the meaning of contract language and ensure that our contractual rights are upheld. The first step in the process is a verbal one in which we discuss our allegation that the contract has been violated. The contract provides time to resolve the grievance before it is submitted in writing. The intent of this step is to resolve issues in the least confrontational way possible.

If the grievance cannot be resolved at the verbal step, the union submits it in writing. The written grievance describes the administrative action, how that action violates the contract, and what is needed for resolution of the grievance. The grievance is initially sent to the building administrator. Again, the goal is to resolve the grievance in the easiest way possible, in this case, at the building level. If the grievance is denied at this level (which means that the administration does not believe that their actions violated the contract), then it is sent to the superintendent or the superintendent's designee. This stage of the process is referred to as a "hearing", but that description is not accurate. Rather, it is a presentation of the grievance to the superintendent. Typically, the administration was either a part of the grievance in that the decision emanated from them or a lower level decision had administrative support. We have not resolved many grievances at this level.

The next step in the process is for the union to submit the grievance to arbitration. The arbitrator is a neutral third party whose decision is binding upon the administration and the union. The teacher is represented by our Uniserv Director. I attend as well. Evidence is presented and the teacher is asked questions by our Uniserv director and cross examined by the administration's attorney. A principal or another administrator may also be present and that person may be cross examined by our Uniserv Director. Each side presents a brief to the arbitrator at the conclusion of the hearing. It's a very civil affair which doesn't square with the administrative view of the intrinsic hostility of grievances and their destructive effect on the parties.

So why is Administration (and ours is typical of others in this regard) so opposed to grievances? Well, every once in a while we win one and Administration finds it very difficult to accept the decision of another entity. The entity is the union via the arbitrator's favorable contract interpretation. Earlier this year we won two grievances in arbitration. In the first one, a teacher's salary was cut when the administration claimed that she wasn't properly certified for her position. We retorted that under state regulations she was certified and that since the contract cites state regulations as defining, no financial harm should have come to the teacher. The arbitrator supported the union's contract interpretation and the teacher received back wages.

The other grievance which we won had direct bearing upon bargaining and led to better contract language in the area of posting vacancies and our ability to attain those vacancies. Kitty Stone was denied a full time English position at Dondero. Stone had been teaching four sections of English at Dondero and one class at Addams. The Administration posted a position for a high school English teacher. They then denied Stone the position, stating that it was not a full time position at Dondero (even though a full time English position had been vacated by another teacher who had transferred to Kimball). The Administration then proceeded to place and hire three teachers at Dondero who between them taught ten sections of English. The grievance could have been resolved at an earlier step by giving Stone one of those classes. But perhaps more to the point from the Administration's perspective was to implement their claim that they had the absolute right to assign teachers to any position that they chose and to keep teachers in any position that they wished. This would deny teachers their contractual right to aspire to a different position. The Union submitted the grievance to arbitration contending that the contract gave our members priority status to open positions over non-bargaining unit members and priority status within the bargaining unit based upon district seniority.

The arbitrator's ruling favored the union. The arbitrator pointed out that while the District had the right to declare a position open (i.e. subject to posting), they could not exercise this right in an arbitrary manner as they did. The arbitrator further pointed out that the District's postings were vague and confusing and did not comply with the contract. Moreover, the vagueness of the postings could allow the District to pre-select who would eventually obtain an available position, obviating the need to declare a position open. The inference was that the District manipulated postings to avoid their contractual obligation to declare positions open.

The timing of the decision could not have been better. We received it as we were attempting to negotiate better posting language in bargaining. The decision gave our team the impetus to continue to demand fair opportunities for our members to obtain new bargaining unit positions. This led to the team successfully bargaining improved language. 

By the time of the arbitration hearing Kitty was full time at Dondero. In terms of her position, the arbitrator's decision would no longer matter. However, Kitty elected to continue with the arbitration case to try to establish better opportunities for all of us. As a result, the contract more clearly obligates the District to post positions that we can apply for and reasonably expect to attain. I want to personally thank Kitty. It was a difficult ordeal for her, but it led to important contractual gains for us.

Administrators dislike grievances as they serve our ends rather than theirs. But serving teachers and protecting their rights is what we are here to do as a union. When teachers are well served, so are their students. View grievances kindly; they are individual acts of courage and union actions of teacher advocacy and protection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interview with....

Where did you work before coming to Oakland County?
I was the Uniserv Director for Waterford teachers and before that I worked with Education Associations near Three Rivers which is just south of Kalamazoo. I was responsible for eleven districts and fourteen contracts during that time.
How did you become interested in union activities?
When I was a grad student at the University of South Florida I was active in the Graduate Assistants Union and I found that my involvement in the union was more interesting and satisfying than being a student or professor.
What was your major field of study?
I taught English and Critical Thinking at the University of South Florida and I was an adjunct professor at the University of Tampa. I plan to complete my Ph. D. in Rhetoric and English Composition through the University of South Florida.
Any wife and kids?
Oh yes, I met my wife in Tampa. We live in Ferndale and have a seventeen month old son, Brendan. My wife, Amy, is an anthropologist and works as an anthropological researcher at the Institute of Gerontology at Wayne State University.
What do you do for fun?
I enjoy time with my family, reading and playing Rugby with the Detroit Rugby Club. I love to travel and have spent time in Australia, New Zealand and France. I also visited a number of countries as a crew member on a large yacht.
What do you hope to accomplish with the ROEA?
Upholding the collective bargaining agreement and advocating for members is most important. This is a people business and a wonderful opportunity to be of service.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------