By Charles Loiacono     

They Practiced Deception and Weaved an Expensive Web

      There was never any doubt that the ELI debacle would be seen as a classic jurisdictional raid. It’s difficult to be kind when describing the clumsy performance of the administration. From the first decision to surreptitiously move courses out of the AFA’s jurisdiction, to the decision to renege on the agreement made between the AFA and the Board of Trustees, to the decision to take a chance in arbitration, the performance was a case of dumb and dumber. I know that’s not kind, but it is accurate.

       Martin Scheinman chairs the tripartite arbitration panel. He has long experience in labor disputes, and is undoubtedly one of the top arbitrators in the business. From the opening discussions on the merits, Scheinman observed the obvious—the AFA jurisdiction had been violated.

      Being a believer in labor peace, he asked the panel to put the question of jurisdiction to rest quickly, reserve the question of remedy to a later date, and seek ways of having the college offer ELI courses while honoring the AFA’s jurisdiction. It was made clear that the AFA’s jurisdiction was clearly delineated in the contract, and that contact hours were the only hours recognized for classroom teachers.

     The ELI assignment sheet supplied by the administration was a hodgepodge of clock hours that had one instructor teaching 4.5 hours while another taught 27 hours. There were assignments of 8, 9 10,

13.5, 18, 22.33, 21.66, 26, 18.66, 4.5, 27, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It is an unholy mess. When asked why assignments were done this way, the answers went like this: “there were problems with room assignments; students should hear only one instructor so they hear the same pronunciations and the same intonations, and the same inflections; and the federal government wants it that way.”

     We have asked to see what this administration calls a federal mandate. They have yet to provide it. I asked for it on the record. We’ll see if it’s forthcoming. We also asked to see what was happening in these classes so we could have a better idea of how the AFA could help come up with a solution to the problems the administration claims exist. They asked that we put that request in writing. We did. They refused. I also put that request on the record.

             So, now what?

      The arbitration panel has asked us to submit our claim for remedy. Our claim will have three pieces: lost unit work, lost union dues, and the differential between what those currently teaching are being paid and what they should have been paid under the AFA contract. Once the claim for remedy is submitted, a second hearing will be held to put the remedy on the record. Beyond that, once we have read the federal mandate and observed some classes, we’ll better understand how this administration got into this imbroglio.