MCCC Home | Year Index | 1992 Index

In This Issue:

• Sex Equity Settlement
• Contract Funding Campaign
• Negotiating Team Vacancies

Tentative Agreement Reached on Equity Suit

Tentative agreement has been reached on an MCCC sex equity salary suit which has been in Federal Court since 1987.

In 1976 three female faculty members from Massasoit Community College filed a charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) that a salary inequity existed between the men and women at Massasoit. The complaint languished at the MCAD until 1982 when eight female faculty members from Berkshire Community College filed a sex equity salary grievance. In 1983 they then filed a complaint with the MCAD and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging that men were being paid at a higher rate than women, and the grievance was held in abeyance. Then the MCAD resurrected the original Massasoit complaint of 1986, and joined it with the Berkshire complaint of 1983, making it a class action suit. In October, 1986 a sex equity pay suit, since referred to as Karen Border et al v. Board of Regents of Higher Education, et al, was filed in the U. S. District Court. In 1987 the MCAD and EEOC complaints were joined with the Federal case as part of a class action suit covering all 15 colleges. Separately the parties conducted statistical analyses of the patterns of compensation paid to female unit members, and the parties independently and jointly concluded that the analyses supplied a factual basis by which to negotiate a settlement. When the discovery process began (the collection of data), discussions began to move toward a systemwide settlement, but the parties reached impasse and proceeded to mediation. A Federal magistrate was assigned by the judge for this case to mediate to settlement.

During negotiations the MCCC took the position that even though this was a class-action suit filed by and on behalf of female faculty members, the female professional staff members would be incorporated into the settlement.

In August 1992 a proposed tentative agreement was reached in Federal Court. Though the financial details are almost final, there are still some loose ends that need to be brought together before the parties can sign the agreement.

The following is an overview of the settlement for the ten affected campuses. Five campuses were not involved in the settlement (Bunker Hill, Greenfield, Holyoke, Mass. Bay and Quinsigamond) because the statistics revealed that there was no sex discrimination.

The settlement is divided into several categories. The major components are back pay, liquidated damages, and emotional distress damages.

Eligible Plaintiffs

Berkshire: ail women employed in a faculty position between 9/1/81 and 6/30/92; professional staff between 9/1/86 and 6/30/92.

Massasoit: all women employed in a faculty position between 9/1/82 and 6/30/92; professional staff between 9/1/86 and 6/30/92.

Bristol, Cape Cod, Middlesex, Mt. Wachnsett, No. Essex, No. Shore, Roxbury, Springfield: all women employed in a faculty position or professional staff position between 9/1/86 and 6/30/92.

Step Increases

Beginning with the first pay period (subject to legislative funding) in Fiscal Year 1994, the following steps will be awarded:

Berkshire, 3 steps; Massasoit, Middlesex, and Springfield, 2 steps; and Bristol, Cape Cod, Mt. Wachusett, No. Essex, No. Shore, and Roxbury, 1 step. Each professional staff member at every community college shall receive a two-step increase.

Retroactive Compensation and Emotional Distress Damages

For each year of employement, or a pro rata part, each female at the following colleges will receive:

Berkshire: for each year of employment between 9/1/81 and 8/31/93, $1,565 for retroactive compensation and $1,564 for damages.

Massasoit: for each year of employment between 9/1/82 and 8/31 /93, $862 for retroactive compensation and $862 for damages.

For each year of employment between 9/1/85 and 8/31/93, the women at the following colleges will receive:

Bristol--$288 retroactive compensation; $287 damages;

Cape--$419 retroactive compensation; $418 damages;

Middlesex--$950 retroactive compensation; $949 damages;

Mt. Wachusett--$727 retroactive compensation; $727 damages;

No. Essex--$510 retroactive compensation; $510 damages;

No. Shore--$446 retroactive compensation; $445 damages;

Roxbury--$353 retroactive compensation; $353 damages; and

Springfield--$1029 retroactive compensation; $1029 damages.

Professional Staff at each college will receive $750 retroactive compensation, and $750 damages for each year of employment between 9/1/85 and 8/31/93.

For these amounts, taxes will be due on retroactive compensation; no taxes are due on the amounts received for damages.

Liquidated Damages

Additional compensation in the form of liquidated damages will be made to the female faculty at Berkshire, Massasoit, Middlesex, No. Essex, and Springfield. The amount of compensation will be calculated as follows: The total number of years of seniority of all female faculty will be divided into the pool of money for each college. Each eligible female faculty member will then multiply her total seniority by that quotient. (The college pools are: Berkshire, $456,82B Massasoit $100,751 Middlesex, $134,829; No. Essex, $60, 180, and Springfield, $170,814.)

In addition Stephanie Small- Prasher (formerly Catalan) and Helen Maloney from Massasoit, two of the original filers of the MCAD complaint, will receive an additional settlement. Six females at Middlesex will not receive the entire settlement as their salaries were adjusted by their college during the past two years.

Grants People and Retirees

The agreements states that the "Defendants shall make best efforts to secure the additional grant funds required for these adjustments subject to the terms ... in the Collective Bargaining Agreement."

For those women who have retired or who on or before June 30, 1993, give notice of their intention to retire, they will receive their monies as retroactive compensation only, not split between damages and retroactive compensation. Their retirement base will be adjusted upward.

Once this agreement is signed, the Higher Education Leadership Council agrees to submit a request to the legislator for a supplemental budget appropriation. If this appropriation bill does not pass, then the parties will return to court. Presently, deadline for passage of the bill is October, 1994.

The supplemental budget will incorporate monies to reimburse the Massachusetts Teachers Association (D50,000) as partial reimbursement for MTA's costs and attorneys' fees. Fees exceeding this amount will be paid by the MTA.

On behalf of the MCCC, the MTA hired Bette Gittes, an outside attorney who specializes in equity cases. MCCC Grievance Coordinator Dennis Fitzgerald worked diligently with Gittes for the past six years. The total settlement of this class action equal pay lawsuit is $10.6 million.

5 YEAR PAY FREEZE LEAVES ME

In-District Meetings Begin For Contract Funding

The 28 higher education institutions have begun to hold in-district meetings with incumbent legislators or with challengers to legislators who do not support our contract funding.

When the contract funding bill was not taken up on September 30, the higher education campaign began the lobbying and in-district meetings phase. With the expectation that the funding bill will come before the legislature after the election, the higher education members, along with members of other unions in the coalition, are now attempting to get members actively involved in political campaigns. The thrust of the campaign is to reaffirm that the representatives and senators who support us support a bill which provides for full contract funding and language for payment of the retroactive monies. We also want these same legislators not to support any amendments proposed by the governor and to override the governor's veto if necessary to fully fund our contracts.

Another component of the campaign is the involvement of our members in specific campaigns. Since there are legislators who do not support full funding of our contracts (usually the same legislators who do not support education issues, anyway), it is imperative that higher education become involved in electing another candidate to the legislature. On the outside possibility that this bill will not go through in this legislative session, we have to be prepared for a bill in January when the new legislative session begins.

Also, the MCCC is coordinating a lobby day in Boston centered around when the bill goes before the legislature in November. Bus rental infermation is being collected for easier coordination of this day.

Call and work for your senator or representative (or the incumbent) who supports the funding of our contract. For those candidates or incumbents who support us, everyone should write a thank you note. We must be active and visible this election year.

Arbitrability Upheld for DCE Contract Issue

When the DCE contract was settled, management's day-contract hearing officer at Massasoit Community College became the hearing officer for DCE grievances. At the first DCE hearing, however, the union objected since the hearing officer, Carl Kowalski, was also a faculty member in the DCE unit. He assured the union that this would not be an issue after January, 1991 since he would no longer teach. In February, Richard Nagle, Massasoit's grievance officer, learned, in fact, that Kowalski was continuing to teach and be the hearing officer. The Massasoit Faculty Association filed a grievance, and subsequently, Ellen Suarez, the MTA Consultant handling DCE, filed a charge of prohibited practice with the Mass. Labor Relations Commission (MLRC).

5 YEAR PAY FREEZE LEAVES ME

In Kowalski's Step I decision regarding the grievance filed against his hearing officer and unit member status, he stated that if he had heard the merits of the case, he would have denied the grievance, but he found that the grievance had terminated because the union initiated a prohibited practice charge. His decision was upheld by management's attorney at Step II. The MCCC then filed for arbitration. The prohibited practice charge was dismissed, and on appeal, the MLRC sustained its decision on the rationale that Chapter ISOE does not require that a step one hearing officer acting on behalf of an employer be impartial.

When this arbitration went to a hearing on July 15 and August 17, 1992, management argued that this case was not arbitrable since the union had Filed in two different forums (grievance and MLRC). Management brought in as a witness James Yess, a DCE unit member and presently the Dean of Academic Affairs at Massasoit. Yess was an MCCC Negotiating Team member for the 1976-1977 day negotiating team. He testified that 16 years ago. there were discussions at the table that "in succeeding negotiations management wanted to further restrict the ability of the Union to bring cases before a number of forums. ...and that this language became the basis for the language currently found in the DCE Agreement . . ."

In rebuttal to Yess's testimony, MCCC Grievance Coordinator Denis Fitzgerald said that this language regarding filing cases in different forums "only occurs when the 'member' or 'members' of the bargaining unit filed in both forums... if an employee filed a grievance charging unlawful discrimination under the contract and filed a charge with the MCAD, then the grievance would be terminated . . . The union never agreed that the Union's filing of a charge of prohibited practice precluded the member or members from filing a grievance."

Though management argued that filing a grievance and filing a prohibited practice charge creates a duplication of litigation, and the union should not be allowed to "split hairs," the arbitrator wrote, "The DCE Agreement simply recognizes the difference between Richard Nagle's filing the grievance and Ellen Suarez's filing the charge of prohibited practice and this difference cannot be brushed aside as 'splitting hairs' no matter how much the grievance and the charge of prohibited practice appear to be identical."

The arbitrator ruled that the grievance is arbitrable. The merits of the grievance must now be determined by the arbitrator.

Know Your Contract

Oct. 25	Spring sabbaticals awarded
Oct. 30	Preferred schedule and courses submitted
Oct. 31	Sick Leave Bank Closed Period
Nov. 7	New full- and part-time employee list to MCCC
Nov. 21	Unit Personnel Practices Committee elected

N.B. Dates may vary depending on first day of classes. Also, most of these dates are "last date" standards. In many instances, the action can he accomplished before the date indicated.