CAT Tracks for June 19, 2002

CAT Tracks for June 19, 2002

CAT GRIEVANCES & REQUESTS...NO!

CHANGE OF CALENDAR

As reported previously, the CAT filed a grievance over the District's unilateral change in the school calendar...turning the last two days of school into "regular attendace days"...arbitrarily requiring teachers to perform year-end duties on their own time. As resolution, the CAT requested two days of additional pay.

Surprise...Barney said "No way!", or words to that effect.

Since the CAT has the option of taking this matter to binding arbitration...and since the IEA legal department has filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) on this same subject on behalf of the CAT...I will NOT go into the mistakes contained in Barney's 5-page "brief". Barney, Doc, Joe, et al are avid readers of CAT Tracks and so I would be giving them unfair advantage by publicizing their errors in advance.

Having extensive experience with Barney's responses in the past, I CAN tell you that he tends to make an assertion "on behalf of the Association" (i.e. he either makes up an issue you didn't raise or misinterprets a peripheral issue and runs with it) and claims "victory" when he argues that point down. But, then, that's typical "lawyerese"...try to control the agenda of discussion.

So...the CAT will refer Barney's arguments...along with conflicting arguments/documentation to the IEA legal department for their response.

SPEAKING OF BARNEY...

Can I have a drum roll please...

Barney's bill for April "services rendered" is in...

$27,311.37

Now, you see why the District could not afford to give you the additional $34,000 over the life of a 3-year contract...$34,000 for 71 employees, instead of $27,311.37 for one person, for one month. I mean Barney's got a wife, and kids, and bills...YOU, on the other hand, are just a greedy teacher..."the District doesn't have the money"..."the money is just not there"...YOU are soooooooooo unreasonable! Geez...

RESPONSE TO CAT REQUESTS/LETTERS...

When the District surprised EVERYONE by taking away a sick day and docked SOME teachers a day's pay because they had used all of their sick leave...the CAT sent a letter to the superintendent requesting the "3rd personal day" on behalf of all teachers...it would have been a "freebie" for most and would have been $60 for those teachers docked...instead of a day's pay.

The superintendent said..."Your request is denied." Why? "First, your request for one additional personal leave day, submitted two days after the school year ended, is untimely." (Well, excuse me...you didn't dock people until one day AFTER the school year ended!) The superintendent went on to say, "Moreover, as indicated on the leave request form, such requests for personal leave must be submitted 24 hours in advance of the day in which the employee intends to use the personal leave day." (Well...AGAIN...we didn't know that we needed the personal leave day until we were suprised with a dock day one day AFTER the school year ended. Making the request within 24 hours after being surprised seems pretty timely to me...) The superintendent concludes by saying, "Finally, you do not have the legal or contractual authority to request personal leave days for all bargaining unit members." (Under the aforementioned circumstances, I beg...no, strike that word - oops, I used the "S" word...do I owe our resident censor a dollar? Make that...I disagree!)

Ya know...there was an easier answer to all of this...the T-R-U-T-H...TRUTH! They messed up! According to the superintendent, "someone" in the Central Office took away a sick day when they weren't supposed to...they have since given it back...and reimbursed (well, hopefully, by now) the teachers who were docked! Why the song and dance about what CAT can or cannot do? Well, they do have an aversion to that "T" word. Why can't they ever just admit to a mistake???

When the District surprised EVERYONE by taking away a sick day and docked SOME teachers a day's pay because they had used all of their sick leave...the CAT sent a letter to the superintendent requesting that any employee so affected should be afforded the opportunity of receiving a donated sick day from another employee since that is the normal practice and provided under Section 5.8 of the CBA. (Section 5.8 is "sick leave pooling".)

The superintendent made all the same arguments...timeliness...can't do that... The CAT could make all the same arguments against. But...AGAIN...it's moot...they gave back the day! Just give us some truth!

Following the May 30th paycheck fiasco, the CAT made an appeal on behalf of several CATs...in fact, by the fourth letter in one morning...it was ALL CATs...that paychecks be reviewed and errors corrected. The superintendent's response: "You alleged various errors in ... paychecks. The District reviewed all paychecks for errors and, to the extent any errors were identified, said paychecks were corrected." I can accept that...except, that it was not true - as of the June 12th date on the superintendent's letter - for the teachers who were docked a day's pay. They did not get paid...in violation of Section 4.15 of the CBA (that's Collective Bargaining Agreement)...until June 14th (maybe).

As the "lump sum" teachers can attest, the District...AGAIN...held out excess federal taxes on the May 30th paychecks. First...REALITY (since that "T" word is hard to swallow for some): The superintendent readily admitted that it should not have happened...did not know why it had happened. The "fix" was "untimely"...a day beyond what is provided in Section 4.15 of the CBA...but we won't go there. However, over a week after the issue became moot, the superintendent is moved to write...

"Your allegation that the District violated Article IV, Section 4.15 because it over withheld federal taxes from employees receiving a lump sum payment at the end of the school year, is without merit. The Association has previously grieved this issue and a precedent has been established that the district has no obligation to modify the method of withholding federal taxes. See Step 2 Response to the Association's Class Grievance Over the District's Tax Withholdings From Pay Checks, dated June 20, 2001.

The superintendent goes on to say..."Notwithstanding the above, the district did agree to adjust the federal tax withholdings for those employees receiving a lump sum payment at the end of the 2001-2002 school year. Said adjustments to employees' federal tax withholdings were made with the full and complete understanding that the employees would save and hold harmless the District in the event of an IRS audit, including but not limited to any and all penalties/fines that could be imposed as a result of said audit." La-de-da ... and it's news to the CAT ... the Association made no such agreement. But...AGAIN...it's moot! It's perfectly legal...which we have been telling them for over a year, now!

And in closing...the superintendent saw fit to add..."Moreover, the Association is hereby on notice that the District's decision to adjust federal tax withholdings for employees receiving a lump sum payment at the end of the 2001-2002 school year shall not be deemed to establish a custom or past practice and the District shall not be obligated to make adjustments to federal tax withholdings in the future."

NOT TRUE...for many reasons. But...primarily...because there is a tentative agreement that covers this issue...which was the basis for the District's move to "adjust" in the first place. Next year at this time (Is that being too optimistic?!), our new CBA will require the District to hold out taxes from lump sum payments at the same rate as if the money was paid out over the entire summer! If they mess it up...again...then they will have to fix it under Section 4.15 (Paycheck Errors) So...PLEASE...stop the "song and dance". (Of course, Barney does get paid to write these "lyrics"...do I hear a big CHA-CHING from up Collinsville way?

AND SPEAKING OF PAYCHECK ERRORS...

I understand that there were some...AS USUAL. For our next number...the District will probably assert that the bi-monthly paycheck errors establish "a custom or past practice and the District shall not be obligated to make adjustments."

Make our day!