CAT Tracks for November 12, 2003 NEVER THEIR FAULT!

In an earlier edition of CAT Tracks, I indicated that the CAT had been bitten by the SNAFU bug - PAYCHECK ERRORS. (Hey...better us than you!) Finally had to file a grievance because of the District's tardiness in responding.

Also, there has been a lot of correspondence...one-way on CAT's part...about how many CATs the District claims to have since the amount of membership dues - FINALLY - remitted to the Association was $1120, which would indicate only 56 members. I mean...we have taken a hit, but I think there are more "survivors" than that!

Finally, four weeks after the grievance meeting and almost two months after the CAT should have received its dues, the Superintendent saw fit to issue a response. Would you believe..."We're sorry we made a mistake and apologize for any inconvenience that it may have been caused." I didn't think so! (Probably would have died of shock if they had given that kind of response!) No...as per usual...it was the CAT's fault!

Needless to say, THAT raised the fur on this CAT's back. So, here's how I spent part of my day off...

(DISCLAIMER: What follows has been "toned down" somewhat. Too many people being fired or suspended lately! I do need a paycheck...whenever I receive it and for whatever amount...)

November 11, 2003

Dr. Isom:

The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt on November 10, 2003, of your “response” to the “Step 2 Grievance meeting and the issues relating to CAT dues.”

Since I am a “veteran” of so many of these “responses”, I will use a portion of my day off to explain why I make these assertions. Where to begin…

· The second paragraph of your “response” does indicate notification of “the parties involved” in “the issues and problems encountered as a result of late or inaccurate payments, deductions, etc.” Well, let us hope that it has an effect…this time. The “parties” have been notified many times in the past…to no apparent avail! I personally notified the payroll department in writing on August 31, 2001 of the proper method of handling membership because of new personnel.

· The second paragraph of your “response” raises the issue of “electronic fund transfer”. “Smoke”, pure and simple. The REAL ISSUE here is that the dues were made out to the wrong party – the IEA, rather that the CAT. All that “electronic fund transfer” will accomplish is that the mistake will be more difficult to correct, as the money will be in Springfield before the error is realized. Under the current system, the Association – whenever it finally receives the (incorrect) check – could return same and the corrected checks issued.

· Just as an aside…why does it take so long to issue the Association’s check? As I mentioned in earlier correspondence, “back in the day”, I used to receive two checks on payday – my personal check and the Association's check for membership dues?

· Back to your “response”…You state in your third paragraph that “Items related to CAT dues have been brought to their attention and they have been instructed to make corrections.” Again…this is unresponsive. The CAT finally received its share of the membership dues over a month ago – on October 3rd. Oops…strike that! The District remitted an amount of $1120…we STILL do not know if this is the correct amount due CAT.

And, now, for the “nitty, gritty” – your accusation(s) against the CAT; namely: “However, it has been stated that payroll has not received information from the CAT which would normally assist in determining CAT dues amounts and the number of CAT members for whom dues would normally be deducted. This includes, the names of those who have dues deducted as well as fair share deductees.” Let’s take them one at a time…

· “…payroll has not received information from the CAT which would normally assist in determining CAT dues amounts…” Well…a modicum of truth! The CAT did not transmit the usual “Membership Dues for 2003-2004” to the payroll department…because none was prepared this year. I usually prepare this form for the meeting with new employees on the first inservice day of the year…this year it was August 14th. As you know, there were no new employees at the beginning of this school year. So you “got me” there. However, that accusation is a specious argument indeed. PRIOR to the first payroll period, I DID transmit a number of payroll deduction forms to the payroll department. Those forms clearly indicated the total amount of membership dues ($500) for the 2003-2004 School Year and the amount to be deducted ($27.77) per pay period.

· “…and the number of CAT members for whom dues would normally be deducted.” More “smoke”…a "true" statement based upon a false premise. As you know, authorization for dues deduction for CAT members “rolls over” as per Section 2.8-B of the CBA. Membership dues are deducted from all returning bargaining unit members, unless “the employee cancels such authorization by notice in writing to the superintendent and the Association prior to September 1st of any school year, to be effective for such year.” (The Association received no such written notification.) So…the Association NEVER notifies the employer of the number of “CAT members for whom dues would normally be deducted.”

· “This includes, the names of those who have dues deducted…” For the reasons related in the above paragraph…NEVER DONE…NOT REQUIRED!

· “…as well as fair share deductees.” Another specious argument, since there has never been a “fair share deductee” in the CAT bargaining unit. (And, if there were, then it would be the Association’s problem since the District would rightly not make a fair share deduction – or dues for a member for that matter – since no membership dues deduction authorization form would have been delivered to the payroll department!)

But…I digress. Step back…forget the trees…take a look at the forest! None of the above is relevant! None of the reasons/accusations detailed in your “Step 2 Grievance Response” have anything to do with the grievance!!! The grievance was about making the first check for membership dues payable to the CAT instead of the IEA. So, your assertions of various failures on the part of the Association have no relevance. Even if the CAT was required to do all of the things that you allege – which it was NOT – it had no bearing on making the check payable to the wrong party!

The negative feelings that employees…and NOT just CATs…have against the District would be greatly alleviated if the District would simply admit error when error is obviously made and offer correction in a timely fashion. Instead, employees look forward (?) to each payday with dread…wondering if they will have to fight for what they have earned.

In closing…back to your unresponsive “response”. The Association will not know if the grievance has been resolved until it receives a response to its letter of October 20th inquiring as to “the number of CAT members ‘on record’ for payroll dues deduction”. Contrary to allegations in your Step 2 Grievance “response”, this is completely under the control of the District – NOT the Association. (I mean, the Association could deliver forms for anyone and/or everyone, but that would not insure that the deduction would be made.)

The Association awaits your timely response.

Sincerely,

Ron Newell, President
Cairo Association of Teachers