On March 1, 2004, I filed my first Improper Practice Charge against the United College Employees of Fashion Institute of Technology (UCE of FIT) (American Federation of Teachers Local 3457) with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for breach of the Union's Duty of Fair Representation under the Taylor Law. The following are the "Particulars of the Charge" as filed.

Item 5: Particulars of the Charge

The following are specific items in support of my charge of an improper practice, specifically, a series of breaches in the duty of fair representation by the United College Employees of Fashion Institute of Technology (UCE of FIT) (American Federation of Teachers Local 3457) under subsection 209-a.2(c) of the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act. I believe that these actions were taken against me in bad faith in support of other Union members who were unfairly receiving special treatment, rights, and benefits that violated the UCE-FIT Collective Bargaining Agreement (the Contract) because of an improper motive, cronyism, i.e., their long-term personal friendship with the president of the Union. Because I was required to deal with some difficult issues in my supervisory capacity (e.g., solving a long-standing dispute between two of these members that necessitated the clarification of job duties and questions from my Dean as to why I was signing timesheets for one of them for work when there was no work to do when a specific provision of the Contract forbade it), there was personal hostility expressed toward me by the president. In addition, other items will demonstrate that the Union’s actions were arbitrary and discriminatory as well. Given the ill will that they have shown to me, I believe the facts support my belief that they fall outside the bounds of the Union’s legitimate discretionary power in determining whose competing interests to support among different members of the Union. At the same time, I hesitate filing this charge, as several colleagues have suggested that there may be retaliatory reprisals made against me by their friends in positions of authority in the College.

Oct. 29, 2003: During the discussion for my tenure at a faculty meeting, retired adjunct professor Raoul Nacinovich, a former chair of my Department who opposed my tenure, presented information obtained from his buddy, UCE President Lou Stollar, and an unnamed vice president that I had asked the Union not to attend the meeting, and upon being told no had then gone to Annette Piecora, the College Vice President for Human Resources, who then called the Union to request the same thing on my behalf. This patently false information was at first attested to as factual by Spencer Schein, UCE Vice President for Faculty, who said he was there when the call from Ms. Piecora came in from me, although he later backed off somewhat from certainty that it was I who called when I stated that it was not true. This part of the meeting was tape recorded.

At this same meeting, we were informed by Mr. Schein that the UCE was taking the position that my role as chairperson of the Department was appropriate to consider in my tenure vote, although I had been informed previously that only my teaching and other faculty functions were to be considered, as was apparently the case with others in the same position in the past. This arbitrary change in practice was apparently done because the Union disapproved of certain actions I took as chair relating to resolving the dispute and issues noted above, and because it was working closely with the minority of faculty members who wanted me fired (i.e., denied tenure) for these actions or because of personal animosity.

Oct. 31, 2003 (approximate date): In a telephone call with me from home with Juliette Romano, UCE Executive Vice President, who knew that it was I who first requested the Union attend this particular faculty meeting, she acknowledged that Mr. Stollar had indeed spoken with Mr. Nacinovich earlier that day, but she declined my request for a Union investigation into the matter to ascertain whether Mr. Stollar had actually given Mr. Nacinovich confidential internal information to use against me in the tenure vote, and if so, whether he had intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the facts. She said it was up to me to talk to Mr. Nacinovich and Mr. Stollar to find out what was said, that I could talk with someone in the Union about a possible grievance, and that she would talk with Mr. Stollar as well. Nothing was ever communicated to me about the outcome of her discussions with Mr. Stollar. It should be noted that at a meeting with Mr. Stollar earlier in the year, he had told me that he didn’t like me, although I don’t recall what he may have said were the reasons.

Background: Ms. Romano wrote a memo to my Department seeking to undermine my role as chair and my efforts to bring fairness to all members of the Department by giving false and/or biased information (Exhibit A), without getting information from me. I was later criticized for responding to it (Exhibit B), which shows that the Union’s bad-faith actions have been ongoing.

Dec. 3, 2003: Spencer Schein, UCE Vice President for Faculty, told our faculty meeting that a motion to rescind my tenure vote could be implemented after the Contractual deadline of December 1 by which time the Department had to inform me of any adverse action decision, despite his specific acknowledgment that I would have a grievance if a negative vote occurred after the deadline, and that I would probably win.

Dec. 10, 2003 (approximate date): Spencer Schein, UCE Vice President for Faculty, told our faculty meeting that the Union had requested a letter of reprimand be placed in my personnel file to “make a grievance go away,” without having informed me of the fact that a grievance was being filed that involved me, without any investigation as to the facts, and without anyone representing my rights in the matter. This apparently involved a comment I made in a private telephone call with a staff member about the conflict between him and another Union member (as noted above), which was misquoted and taken out of context. In a meeting earlier in the year, I had been informed by Mr. Stollar that he was considering using his version of the comment as constituting harassment toward the person about whom the comment was made (his long-time buddy who was being accorded special treatment). This was similar to a previous effort to falsely accuse me of harassment for writing down the times an employee was late or failed to complete a job assignment, which seemed to be a tool used to protect special interests of some Union supporters with personal ties to Mr. Stollar and Mr. Nacinovich. Mr. Schein noted that the Union was considering filing a grievance on behalf of (an) unnamed Department faculty member(s) to support a re-vote on my tenure, using the fact that the letter of reprimand requested by the Union had not been put in my personnel file. In fact, they are using the power of their position to foster situations that they know or should know is likely to result in a grievance, which, by their own admission (see entry for Dec. 3), I would probably win, to harass me by encouraging a hostile environment that disrupts my functioning effectively and fairly in my job.

At around the same date, Mr. Schein or another Union officer sent a memo to the College administration that I had violated a provision of the Contract by allowing a guest lecturer (whom I believed to be competent for the task) to substitute for a faculty member who was ill for the last session of a fencing class, although I considered it an emergency situation and would be in the best interests of the students in the class. As part of the ongoing efforts by the Union to support their friends in their efforts to fire me, this selective enforcement of particular provisions of the Contract, while ignoring those involving their friends, is also discriminatory and in bad faith. The fact that it was the Union that reported this to the administration demonstrates their failure to represent me. They did not discuss the reasons for my decision with me so they might properly consider the merits of my action so that they could defend me as a Union member or not.

Sworn deposition stating facts known to be true, except as to those matters alleged on information and belief, which matters are believed to be true, March 1, 2004.

Go to PERB Charge 2
Return to PERB Cases main page

Contact Information:
Raymond J. Noonan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Former Chairperson
Health and Physical Education Department
27th Street and 7th Avenue, AX13
New York, NY 10001
212.217.7460
Raymond_Noonan@fitnyc.edu

First published on the Web on November 21, 2004
Last updated on March 26, 2005; Ver. 1a
http://www3.fitnyc.edu/raymond_noonan/

Disclaimer: "The contents of these pages have not been reviewed or approved by FIT."