On Wednesday, April 10, the Joint Labor Management Classification Committee (JLMCC) met to review the classification consultants finding for the compensation study to determine the steps we would need to negotiate to move forward.

At the beginning of this study, the JLMCC – which includes equal representation from ACE and the District – agreed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in January of 2017, that the salary study “would be used to determine the appropriateness of the internal alignment of the FHDA classifications”, “to compare FHDA salaries to comparable Community College Districts as determined by the committee” and that the “salary benchmarks will remain in the top three of the salary schedule for any external comparisons”.

In January of 2018, the JMLCC agreed to which college districts and positions would serve as comparison benchmarks for the compensation portion of the study. The committee specifically agreed not to use the Bay Area 10, which includes FHDA, San Mateo CCD, West Valley CCD, San Jose-Evergreen CCD and Oholone College, and selected college districts based on Koff’s data analysis criteria, which would include comparable Southern California districts and City College of San Francisco. Again, both parties agreed to these comparisons and benchmarks.

Now, for the first time ever, we are told that management has taken over the internal alignment portion of the study and will change all the salaries basing it on the Bay Area 10. ACE was never provided with the data from Koff regarding their proposed internal alignment. This is in direct violation of our agreement. It appears that the salary portion of the study is being unilaterally circumvented by the District.

What does this mean?
It means more delay. All of your questions around classification appeals, compensation and implementation cannot be answered until this issue is resolved. ACE will address the issue by any or all of the following actions depending on the District’s response.

  1. Our attorney has already sent notice to the District to release the study as prepared and presented to both the District and ACE from Koff without any modifications from either party. We are giving them a minute to respond.
  2. If no response is forthcoming or the District refuses to adhere to our agreement, ACE could file an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against the District with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for bargaining in bad faith. As you can imagine, this takes time to mitigate but could be addressed in a reasonable 3-6 month time frame.
  3. The ACE membership could send a call-to-action to the District by bringing the issue before the FHDA Board of Trustees at one of their upcoming meetings.

The District is just stalling and doesn’t want to implement the study. Can they do that?
No. The study was agreed to by both parties. They can’t opt out.

What about the classification portion? Does that go into effect now?
No. This study is all or nothing (classification and compensation combined). Until you, the membership, vote on it’s implementation, our current classification system remains in effect.

ACE will continue to keep you informed of any changes and next steps.

JLMCC Membership

Voting Members
Bradley Booth, Attorney – ACE
Cathleen Monsell, Chair of Negotiations – ACE
Chris White, President – ACE
Myisha Washington, Director of Human Resources – Administration
Lisa Mandy, De Anza Director of Financial Aid – Administration
Kevin Harral, Foothill Director of Financial Aid – Administration

Non-voting members
Anthony Booth, Labor Representative – ACE
Thuy Quach, Human Resources – Administration