As part of the ongoing story regarding the United Staff of Columbia College, US of CC, some members of the college’s staff said they feel as though the union’s contract agreement vote lacked communication, transparency and fairness.

After years of negotiation, a vote was held on Feb. 10 by the US of CC regarding approval of the contract.  Members who  raised concerns are asking the union administration to release the number of people who voted on the contract ratification.

They said they are requesting the voting figures because they feel the votes cast were unfair and the union’s 80 percent approval vote on the contract is not representative. Union officials disagree as to whether or not the union will release any of the numbers to its members.

Although John Murray, vice president of the US of CC and assistant to the chair of the Science and Math Department,  said the union eventually plans to release numbers to union members.

“As far as I know, we eventually plan to release numbers,” Murray said. “But we don’t want to fight about whether or not we have enough votes.”

However,  according to Michael Bright, president of the US of CC and faculty member in the Film and Video Department, it is unlikely the numbers will be released.

“I haven’t talked with [Murray] about that,” Bright said.  “As  far as I’m concerned, the numbers shouldn’t be an issue.”

Jeff Sanderson, senior admissions counselor in the Undergraduate Admissions Office, said it is the union’s responsibility to inform its members as to how many people voted on the contract agreement.

“This is all so opaque,” Sanderson said. “It makes me feel like I’m getting lied to when [the] president of the union I am now a member of [says] something like, ‘We play our cards close to our vest.’ Isn’t that my vest too, if I’m a member? We are owed transparency dependent on what the numbers are. I’m a member, why don’t I see the numbers? It should be that simple.”

Nancy Gahan, student service representative of the college’s Student Financial Services, said she  would also like to know the number of people who voted on the contract agreement. Gahn said keeping this information from the members makes the union look “even worse.”

A spreadsheet listed on the US of CC’s Web site lists the members of the bargaining unit as of November 2009. Included on the list are at least two former employees of the college. Murray said he was unsure how the union would determine which names on the list were no longer staff of the college.

“The problem with the list is that it’s supplied by Human Resources, and they told us that’s the best list they have,” Murray said. “I’m assuming it’s correct when we get it.”

Joan McGrath, administrative assistant to the chair of the Film and Video Department, said the number of bargaining unit members change daily.

“How is this relevant?”  McGrath asked.

In a telephone investigation on Feb. 24, The Chronicle called an additional 19 staff members listed on the spreadsheet.

Out of the 19 members, 10 said they did not vote on the Feb. 10 contract agreement. Of those 10, four said they would have voted against the agreement and six were undecided. Seven of those asked said they were unaware they were listed as union members, and two of them said they hadn’t voted because they never received the ballot in the mail.

The Chronicle conducted a similar investigation on Feb. 18,  during which 15 other staff members listed on the spreadsheet were called. Of those 15 members, five said they voted in favor and 10 had not participated in the vote. Two of the 10 didn’t receive ballots in the mail, and three of the others were unaware they were listed as members of the bargaining unit.

One of the main concerns the staff members raised was the lack of communication between the union and newly hired staff members.

Brooke Kile, compliance and training analyst for the college’s Student Financial Services, said she was not aware of her union membership until it was time to vote on the contract.

“I think a lot of my concerns about the union are stemming from the fact that I was never notified one existed or that I was in it,” Kile said. “So a lot of meetings that were held in the fall and all the material floating around campus, I never paid attention [to] because I wasn’t aware that it applied to me.”

It is unclear why new staff members were not informed they were members of the union upon being hired.  Ellen Krutz, vice president of the HR Department, said the Human Resources Department was not responsible for telling the staff members about the union.

“The union received lists on a regular basis of employees who were considered to be in the union, including a separate list of new employees,” Krutz said.  “My belief is that the union has the responsibility to communicate with their new membership. They had the information to communicate it to them. If they chose not to, I don’t think the Human Resources Department can be responsible for that. We can’t communicate on behalf of the union; that’s not appropriate.”

McGrath said she  was not  fully  informed as  to   who   was   supposed  to  communicate  with the  new membership.

“I had assumed that [Human Resources] was letting them know, but I could be wrong,” McGrath said.

Staff members could not vote to ratify the contract unless they were members of the union. Kile said she did not vote because she wasn’t aware that she was required to but also didn’t want to commit herself to something that she didn’t want to be a part of.

Kile also expressed concern that disagreements over the union have become a divisive force in her office.

“I can already see in my office there are people very for and very against it, and it’s unfortunate because I get both sides,” Kile said. “I just hate seeing it be something that can be a device where they’re going to argue or not see eye to eye. I hope that the March 8 meeting will let people from both sides, whether supportive or not, get a chance to get their questions answered so everyone’s on the same page.”

According to McGrath, a meeting will be held on March 8 to address any unanswered questions that union members may have about their membership.

“We are focused on serving staff who have been waiting for representation,” McGrath said. “We are going to get as many people to answer any questions and provide them with the opportunity to get involved. It’s been a long time coming, we have a lot of support and we want people who want to have a voice in the college to know that this is a grassroots organization and they have a place in the organization to make Columbia College [the] best [institution]

it can be.”

Marie Cortopassi, a tour counseling associate in the college’s undergraduate admissions office, said her main concern with the union’s voting system is that her ballot did not get mailed to her correct address.

“I don’t think the vote was fair at all,” Cortopassi said. “A lot of people never received ballots or they were mailed to old addresses. They’re claiming that it’s the administration’s fault, but all my records have been accurate for everything else from Columbia since I’ve been hired. Everything comes to my Chicago address, so I don’t know why something like a union voting ballot [from an organization] I didn’t even know I was part of, would be mailed to my house in St. Louis.”

Cortopassi also added that she is unclear why the union didn’t make itself known to her upon her hiring at Columbia.

“If it is something that’s going to do good things for us and help us throughout our career, why don’t they tell us more about it?” Cortopassi asked. “Why is it such a mysterious thing?”

The college’s Human Resources Department provided the US of CC with the staff member’s addresses. However, Krutz said unless she personally investigated the case, she couldn’t say why Cortopassi’s ballot was mailed to an incorrect address.

“They are correct that Human Resources provides certain information including home addresses, but I can’t respond specifically,” Krutz said. “If most things are going to her house in Chicago, then I can’t explain why that happened, but I’m sure there are other explanations other than bad intent. It may have legitimately been reported from an old record, but without investigating it, I don’t know.”

Some of the staff members are confused as to why a union has been put in place at the college.

“My biggest issue is the fact that we even have a union,” Gahan said. “I really don’t think that Columbia staff needs a union. I started working here in 2001, and Columbia has been wonderful to me. I just find it so unnecessary to have a union here. For the faculty? Yes. But not for the staff. We have wonderful benefits; there’s just no

point to it.”