By Charles Loiacono     

In Anticipation of Reading the PERB Decision

             PERB has rendered a decision in the LINCC case.

            A mix-up in the postal service, due to a change of address for our law firm, had the special delivery of the decision floating around New York. I still have not seen the decision and therefore cannot deal with it in an analytical way.

            What I can do is give the reader the bottom line. PERB has decided that the LINCC program and its “lecturers” belong in the NCCFT. How that came about, since John Gross, attorney for the administration, argued long and hard that the program belonged in the AFA bargaining unit, can be explained. In a series of hearing before PERB, Gross brought in administrative witnesses that made the case for there being a community of interest with the AFA. He submitted papers in support of the petition. Those papers gave evidence that LINCC “lecturers” should be included in the AFA. The administration’s aim was to negotiate new terms and conditions for these so called “lecturers” (less pay, longer hours). The NCCFT joined the AFA and argued in effect that this was a rogue program that had never gone through the required establishment procedure for creating new college programs and violated the very concept of collegiality. They argued that calling the program “full-time” did not make it “full-time” as understood in either the NCCFT or the AFA contracts. The NCCFT also argued, as we did, that the administration had merely changed the name of the program from ELI to LINCC, but that in essence it was the same program with the same individuals teaching the same courses.

Late in the game, long after the hearings were closed, and long after briefs were submitted, the administration changed strategy. A full year after initiating the PERB proceeding, no decision had been rendered. On October 8, 2008, Deborah Dempster, an associate of John Gross, submitted a Post-Hearing Brief in which the administration’s position took a 180 degree turn. In a 31 page brief, arguments were put forth that refuted all of the administration’s previous arguments made at the hearings and in the original briefs.

            Someone perceived a handle and it was used in the opening statement: “The Nassau Community College Federation of Teachers (hereinafter ‘NCCFT’) avers, in its response to the petition, that it would claim jurisdiction over the LINCC Lecturer position if it is found that the Lecturers are full-time employees.

            Seeing that handle as a way to turn the game around, the brief goes into great detail using all the things they did to make the program take on a community of interest with the NCCFT. They had confined the program to the fall and spring in keeping with the AFA’s jurisdictional provision (all courses except full-time courses in the fall and spring). They provided fringe benefits to “lecturers.” They required out-of-classroom responsibilities. They had them teaching 21 hours a week. They put them on an annual salary. No need to be first in the class to recognize the plan. They had molded an adult education program to look like a full-time program and then used an NCCFT conditional response to show the nexus between

(Continued on back page.)