The classified union of the Kern Community College District is awaiting the outcome of an unfair labor practices charge it filed against the district on Nov. 1 relating to a change in working hours, union officials say.

In a formal hearing, union officials will challenge the administration’s unilateral decision last spring to increase Monday to Thursday hours for many staff members from eight to nine with a four-hour shift on Fridays. They say that was a violation of collective bargaining rules requiring the district to consult with the union.

“By law, they have to negotiate,” said Mike Nolan, the union’s outgoing labor relations representative. “Wages, hours, and working conditions are a mandatory subject of bargaining.”

Ray Quan, district director of human resources, could not be reached for comment.

Richard Galtman, a Fresno-based attorney representing the district for the firm Lozano Smith, confirmed that the issue will be decided in a formal hearing this summer but declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Among other things, the union is seeking back overtime pay for the ninth hour and the regularization of schedules, which Noland said have been subject to change without notice.

Noland said the district’s actions in the case were characteristic of its dealings with the union over the past year. Instead of negotiating what may have been an easy issue to agree on, it unilaterally changed schedules, he said.

“They feel they have the ability to do basically whatever they want to do,” he said.

The work hours issue was the last of three unfair labor practices, or ULPs, filed against the district in 2003, according to union President Cynthia Munoz.

The first alleged that the layoffs of some 50-60 employees in July were done improperly. That issue was resolved in mediation when the district agreed to reinstate medical benefits and salary retroactive to the initial layoff dates, according to Nolan.

The second involved allegedly improper reassignments of four employees whom Noland said were moved unilaterally. The dispute was settled in an informal hearing in which both sides agreed on a structural arrangement to govern future employee reassignments.

Noland said the district could have saved $300,000 if it had followed the proper procedures.

“If the district would have followed appropriate law, there would be no cost,” he said.

He estimated the hours dispute will ultimately cost the district up to a half million dollars in retroactive pay because so many employees were affected.

Noland said the 2003 ULPs were the result of a deteriorating district-union relationship that began to sour earlier during Dr. Sandra Serrano’s tenure as BC president.

“(The union) from the beginning has generally had a good working relationship with district management, including management at BC,” Noland said. “There was a general shift in relations before last year, I’m guessing sometime around the time that Serrano took office.”

When asked if a new BC president would improve the relationship, he said that “the shift has to come from the very top,” adding that he hoped Serrano’s move to the chancellor’s office “changes her approach to the classified union.”

Serrano became BC president in 1998 after serving in a number of other administrative positions. She was recently selected to replace Dr. Jerry Young as district chancellor.

In an April 14 interview, Serrano said her “strained” relationship with CSEA was an anomaly, noting that she has had “an exceptional relationship” with the union.

She declined to comment on the unfair labor practice.

Noland said the July hearing would go the union’s way. “We fully expect that (it) will be resolved in favor of the union,” he said.