On December 20, 2016, the Baruch PSC Chapter met with President Wallerstein, Provost Christy, and other members of the administration to review concerns raised by the Chapter under Article 2 of the contract, which calls for meetings each semester between these parties.

The PSC Chapter leadership, accompanied by PSC Director of Contract Enforcement Debra Bergen, raised a number of issues of concern to adjunct faculty:

1. The Baruch PSC Chapter leadership asked that the College withdraw its requirement for a statement of “teaching philosophy” as part of the packet of materials required for the comprehensive evaluation of faculty eligible for a three-year appointment.   The PSC also asked that the due date for the materials be delayed until the start of the Spring semester, as adjuncts are not on the payroll in January, when these materials were due.

We are happy to report that the College has agreed to withdraw the demand for a statement of “teaching philosophy”, and to move the date for the submission of the packet to Monday, February 6. These changes were reflected in revised letters the College recently sent to adjunct faculty it deems eligible to be reviewed by their departments this coming Spring for the new three-year appointment.

2. The PSC also discussed a class-action grievance it has filed over the College’s refusal to consider adjuncts who teach a single jumbo class for multi-year appointments. The criteria for the new three-year appointment stipulate that an adjunct faculty member needs to have taught at least six contact hours per semester for ten consecutive semesters in the same department to be eligible to be reviewed for a three-year appointment. It is the union’s position that a jumbo course should count as six contact hours.

The College responded by stating that the issue with jumbo classes and multi-year contracts was not introduced by the College, but rather reflects University policy. Since that meant that holding a Step One grievance hearing at the College would be fruitless, as the College would rule in accordance with the University’s position, we asked the College to agree to forego the Step One hearing and allow us to take the matter directly to the University at Step 2, which will expedite the process of determining the outcome of the grievance. The College agreed to do this; we have indicated to the University that we are available to attend a Step Two hearing in January.

3. We raised an issue that has been highlighted by the comprehensive review required for the multi-year appointment, namely, the inability of the College in some cases to locate earlier classroom observation reports, which will presumably be needed as part of the process of evaluating an adjunct’s qualifications for the appointment.

The chapter is waiting for a response from the College on this issue.

4. We also raised a concern about the practice of asking adjuncts who cannot make it to class to find a replacement to fill in for them. Under Article 14.8 of the contract, an adjunct may take up to 1/15 of the semester off with pay for excused absences. Should the College arrange to have an adjunct faculty member fill in for an absent faculty member, the adjunct who is filling must be paid by the College, as must the absent faculty member. By asking the absent adjunct to make arrangements for a replacement, the college is avoiding its responsibility to pay the adjunct who is substituting for the absent faculty member. In addition, the absent adjunct would then be expected to be available to return the “favor” to the replacement. This essentially means that adjuncts are not being paid when they are out sick, violating Article 14.8 of the contract.

The chapter is waiting for a response from the College on this issue.

5. In an effort to ensure that our adjunct membership is better informed of its rights and benefits under the contract, we asked the College to distribute union membership cards and a brochure on adjunct rights and benefits to newly hired adjuncts, a practice in place at a number of other senior college; the College declined to do so.

6. The chapter leadership also brought up the issue of granting workload credit to full-time faculty for summer teaching. This practice has been widespread at Baruch, although in clear violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The PSC has objected to these violations but has expressed a willingness to consider reviewing a proposal submitted by Provost Christy, who stated that the college would submit a formal proposal for the union’s consideration in January.   Once the chapter has reviewed the proposal with PSC leadership, we will hold a chapter meeting to discuss prospective granting of workload credit for summer teaching.

7. Chapter representatives also endorsed the Baruch’s public support of immigrant rights since the Trump election and encouraged further consideration of efforts to declare all CUNY colleges sanctuary campuses.

The Chapter membership was represented at the Article Two meeting by Chapter Chair Vincent DiGirolamo, Vice Chair Carly Smith, Secretary Stan Wine, Delegate Elizabeth Wollman, and HEO Labor-Management Committee representatives Jennifer Harrington and Douglas Medina. PSC Director of Contract Enforcement Debra Bergen assisted the chapter leadership in presenting its arguments.