Transcript Basic Skills for the New Supervisor

New Challenges:
Managing Labor, Employee
and Community Relations
Nancy Hungerford
The Hungerford Law Firm
January 28, 2012
The “Big Picture” -- 2012
• No new resources, reserves are gone, and deep cuts
in days and staff have already been made.
• Communities do not back increased salaries and
insurance costs – and employees know it – but
citizens lack information about bargaining.
• CBAs and state law restrict districts’ ability to make
change quickly in compensation, costs.
“The Big Picture,” Continued
• Collective bargaining is short-term, repetitive,
and more often ineffective – hence “final offers”
and unilateral implementation are more frequent.
• Parent and community “watch-dogs” use
complaint processes, threatened litigation to
contest district actions (e.g., elections,
contracting out, ethics)
• Divided boards and communities challenge
superintendents’ skills in collaboration.
• Expectations for results and “reform” remain
high.
Roles of the Superintendent
• THE PLANNER: Determine
priorities for the long term
• THE MANAGER: Ensure legal
compliance, delegate, supervise
• THE CHEERLEADER:
Motivate and inspire
• THE PROBLEM-SOLVER:
Resolve complaints and
disagreements within board and
community groups
Collective Bargaining Challenges, 2012
Open
*Start bargaining early – or not?
*Opening proposals – zero? Or less?
* Bargaining workload increases?
* One-year contract – or reopeners?
* Starting communication early –
with employees and community
* Expect a lengthy process
* Don’t give up language
Recent Labor Litigation
*Expect ULPs filed or threatened during unresolved bargaining
as a tactical move (Tigard, McMinnville, Parkrose, etc.)
*Frequent ULPs, grievances over change in workload, schedule
(Portland, Gresham)
*Pay careful attention to legal requirements for mediation, final
offers, unilateral implementation
*Increasing challenges based on “regressive bargaining”
*Charges of retaliation against union activists
*Increasing demands to bargain mid-term
over changes in “status quo”
*Changes in ERB personnel, funding
Communication during Bargaining
• School board, administrators may communicate at any time
with any employee BUT (1) may not make a new proposal and
(2) may not threaten.
• Union leadership may communicate with all school board
members but may not make a new proposal except by going
through district’s bargaining team.
• Unions may use district e-mail, mail only as provided by CBA
provisions, but be aware of changing past practices.
• Union members may wear buttons, but not post bargainingrelated posters in classrooms, halls.
• Boards may discuss bargaining positions in executive session,
but may also hold such discussions in open session.
Communication: Best Practices?
With employees:
1. Early info on financial
picture, in person
2. Regular info from district
on proposals, pace of
bargaining
3. Supervisors “in the know”
4. Use electronic
communication
5. Short, one-topic messages
With the community:
1. “Transparent” planning
and “choice-making”
2. Board and administrator
training and updates
3. Get the message across
at board meetings
4. Have a cohesive board
message
5. Short, one-topic messages
Planning for Change:
Legal Requirements
• Check to see if CBA applies; if so, seek waiver or
utilize any real “reopener” clause (i.e., reducing prep time
guaranteed by CBA, moratorium on tuition reimbursement)
• Where CBA is silent or expired but practice exists,
notify union in advance on any mandatory change,
bargain on demand through expedited bargaining (i.e.,
increasing teachers’ student contact time, decreasing teacher work days)
• Before implementing change in permissive subjects,
notify union of possible mandatory impacts, complete
expedited bargaining before implementation (i.e., new
student schedule, new grade reporting system?)
Planning for Change:
Best Practices
• Use existing communication means to set the
stage: present the problem, alternatives
• Do not aim for “buy-in,” but understanding
• Seek input from many constituencies, but
beware of “bargaining” directly with members
• “No surprises” for union leadership
• Share information early
• Protect management rights while collaborating
Communicating with Public:
Legal Requirements, Limits
1. Public meetings law
(Posting, changing agenda, minutes, etc.)
2. Executive sessions
(Advance notice to employees? confidentiality)
3. Public records law
(Initial response in “timely” manner, costs, time)
4. Elections law
(Impartiality in district-produced materials, no use of employee time to
promote election measures)
5. Ethics law
(Conflicts of interest, special advantages for employees)
Communications: Special Problems
1.
2.
3.
4.
Divided school board
“Chronic” e-mailing parent
Excessive public records requests
Offensive, threatening communicators
S.B. 290: Evaluation Standards & Procedures
To comply with the requirements of S.B. 290:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determine if your current evaluation system/ standards meet
all requirements of S.B. 290. If so, no action may be needed.
Use consultation process in ORS 342.850(2) as a means for
“collaboration” to “customize” the core teaching standards
adopted by the State Board of Education. There is no
obligation to bargain over the standards. ORS 243.650(7).
Review current CBA provisions on evaluation to determine
if any change is necessary in next round of bargaining.
Avoid language referencing the standards or other aspects of
the evaluation procedure in the CBA to limit grievances.
Evaluation: Current PECBA Principles
• Standards for evaluation are permissive
matters of bargaining.
• Evaluation procedures are permissive except
for “fundamental fairness” procedures (i.e., right to
know standards, right to receive a written evaluation, right to discuss
evaluation).
• Proposal that “the district will comply with
ORS 342.850” is mandatory.
• S.B. 290 did not change PECBA.
Evaluation: Cautions after S.B. 290
• Don’t agree to change CBA to allow “just cause” provision,
rather than Fair Dismissal Law, as route for appeal of teacher
dismissal.
• Eliminate/avoid any language that limits scope of evaluation,
such as “No teacher shall be placed on a plan of assistance
based on student test scores.”
• Avoid qualification of standards based on “individual
circumstances” of teacher.
• Avoid limitation on “measures of teacher effectiveness,” while
allowing “multiple evaluation methods.”
• When it comes to CBA language, “less is best.”
Implementing H.B. 3681
• Involve all stake-holders: board, employees,
community in advance
• “Go slow” approach: some choices are long-lasting.
• Consider possible unintended consequences, such as
higher cost students.
• Impact on charter school students?
• Impact on existing (mutual) inter-district transfers?
Reduction in Force: Recent Decisions
• Under ORS 342.840, part-time teachers may be
assigned between .5 and 1.0 FTE
• Arbitrators have upheld layoff of senior teachers who
have less “competence” due to lack of recent teaching
at grade level/subject.
• Arbitrators will uphold policies that limit recall to the
position held before layoff.
• Arbitrators recognize limited scope of review of
evidence under ORS 342.934(7).
Reduction in Force Questions
• How to define “educational attainments” as a
standard of “competence”?
• Recall decisions: Can “merit” and “competence” be
considered?
• Can a position ever be filled with a new hire if
employee on layoff not a “good fit” for opening?
• Must added hours be given to classified employees
who have lost hours?
Parting Thoughts:
• Decisions in difficult times, when no easy or
“right” decision exists, are a real test of
leadership.
• Model respect and civility at all times.
• Pursue collaboration, but accept reality.
• Communicate continually, not just during
crisis.
More Questions?
 Contact Nancy at:
[email protected]
503-781-3458