The Union's Position

  By Charles Loiacono     

Justice Delayed

That adage has become cliché, so much so that it need not be completed, because everyone knows that if you delay justice, you certainly deny it. Justice is not only denied during the time one awaits the meting-out, but often because matters become moot, witnesses disappear, circumstances change, and death sometimes interferes.

            For years the grievance procedure, written originally into the first AFA Agreement, worked as written. It was true conflict resolution. The time limits aimed at resolving conflicts in a timely manner were honored because the individuals representing the parties worked on campus. They were ready, willing, and able to sit down and present their positions on the matter before them.

            I have been representing the AFA on the tripartite grievance board since 1974 when the first contract was signed. For the first 20 years or so the AFA grievance chairman represented the union and the dean or the vice president represented the administration. These individuals were the most knowledgeable on campus and were experienced advocates at presenting their interpretation of the contract. There was always a neutral chosen by agreement of both parties. That neutral provided a fresh look and was most often a professional arbitrator that understood contract obligations.

            As a result, conflicts did not fester as they do now. As conflicts arose, they were quickly dealt with. Now, we wait as conflicts grow bigger and bigger.

            It all started when the Fanelli administration decided they wanted conflicts handled by high-priced lawyers together with court reporters providing verbatim records of all grievance hearings. At $300,000 a year, this administration has given millions to the same law firm. Let’s not forget the cost for four full-time attorneys working for the administration.

            The obvious question is “Yeah, but how much have they saved by winning cases?” Now, that’s a great question.

 

  

          This high-powered law firm has lost most of the cases they have argued for the administration. There are two reasons for this outcome. First, we too have a law firm—a very good one, and high-powered. But second, and quite important, is the fact that we will not allow a case to proceed to arbitration unless we are convinced that it is an obvious violation of the contract and that we can be confident that a neutral will see the violation. We often tell a grievant that loses a step two decision that we will not proceed to step three because it is a loser. And, more often, we tell an irate member that he or she does not have a case that we can win.

            The best proof of the administration’s folly in changing the approach to conflict resolution is how the opening gambit played out. Soon after retaining this firm to argue an administration’s case, that firm lost the case in arbitration. Being legal eagles, they appealed to the courts. The case went to the Supreme Court, then to the Appellate Division, and finally to the Court of Appeals. It took five years to get a decision from the highest court in the state. The result: the AFA won $6.2 million.

            We are now experiencing the same scenario with the ELI/LINCC scam. In this case, justice has been delayed since 2006. And the beat goes on. I have just read a series of e-mails between the arbitrator and the lawyers delaying a very simple case for many months, because the lawyers are too busy with things like bar association meetings and other matters that make up their busy schedule.

         But hope springs eternal. New trustees have been appointed, and Fanelli is singing his swan song. A new era dawns for NCC. We hold no hope that the old members of the Board of Trustees will begin thinking for themselves. But, perhaps new trustees will be independent thinkers. If they are thinkers at all, they may see the folly in paying millions to lawyers just to have them ensure that conflicts are not resolved expeditiously—especially that when resolved they are resolved in favor of the union.