Starbuck Education Association
And
Fact Findings
Arbitrator: Katrina Boedecker
Date Issued:
Arbitrator: Boedecker; Katrina
Case #: 10341-F-93-165
Employer:
Date Issued:
BEFORE THE FACT-FINDER
In the matter of the request
of: )
) CASE 10341-F-93-165
STARBUCK EDUCATION ASSOCIATION )
)
For fact-finding involving a )
bargaining
unit of certificated )
employees
employed by: )
FINDINGS OF FACT
) RECOMMENDATIONS
_____________________________________ )
Joe Wyatt,
appeared on behalf of the
district.
Diane Schmidtke, UniServ Field Representative, appeared
on behalf of the association.
On
Public Employment Relations
Commission that the
District had rejected the
association's offer of settlement made in
mediation,
and requested the Commission to institute fact-finding
proceedings
under RCW 41.59.120. A fact-finding hearing was held
in
Katrina I. Boedecker.
The parties made oral closing arguments at
the
hearing, in lieu of filing post-hearing briefs.
BACKGROUND
region
in the southeastern part of
offers
services in one building for students in pre-school through
8th
grade levels. The district also has certain
"government
houses"
which it can rent out or offer to staff members. Although
the
district boundaries encircle hundreds of acres, the district
enrollment
has been low over the past five years, at approximately
33 to 35 full time equivalent
(FTE) students.1 In the past years,
the
district has paid parents to transport their children to school
themselves.
Recently, the district has acquired a van and is able
to
use transportation funds granted by the state to transport
students.
______________
1 For
1992-1993, the pre-school/Kindergarten has 4
students, The lst, 2nd and 3rd grade combination classroom
has 8 students. The
4th and 5th grade combination classroom
has 9 students. The
middle school classroom
(6th, 7th and 8th grades) has 15 students.
The Starbuck Education
Association was formed in 1985, when the
teachers
realized that they were being paid below salary allocation
provided
to the district by the state. The state funding is based
on
the teachers' education level and years of experience. Two of
the
salary figures lagged by $3,000 and $5,000. The first
collective
bargaining agreement was bargained during the 1985-1986
school
year. As a result of that agreement, teachers were paid in
accordance
with what they generated from the state.
The school board is relatively
new. Experience for members ranges
from a
high of three years to less than one year. To encourage
communication
with community members, the school board has a
potluck
dinner/board meeting once a quarter.
It is undisputed that the
teachers and the board members donate
many
hours of their time, as well as materials and equipment, to
the
school and its classrooms. The school district is the largest
employer in
the community. The community is supportive of the
school;
no one can recall a levy failing in Starbuck. In the past
six
or seven years, Starbuck residents were allowed to vote on a
bond
issue run by
High School.2 The bond issue passed, and
completed
paying off its share of the obligation in the 1991-1992
school
year. Generally, the district's residents earn their living
ranching
or farming, or live on retirement incomes, welfare
payments
or disability incomes.
_____________
2.
students complete
their education at
In 1991-1992 the district
participated in an extensive strategic
planning
process. Teachers, parents, community members, and the
board
were involved in developing an action plan. Based on goals
and
plans developed by this group, it was determined that the
district
should hire a half-time music/art teacher and establish a
computer
lab in the middle school classroom.
During the 1991-1992 school
year, the district's staff included a
half-time
pre-school/Kindergarten teacher: a full time lst, 2nd
and
3rd combination grade teacher:
a full time 4th and 5th combination
grade
teacher: a half-time middle school teacher: and a half-time
superintendent/half-time
middle school teacher.
Toward the end of that school
year, all the teachers received
notices
that they might be subject to a reduction-in-force for the
next
year. The superintendent told Kelly Knebel, the
half-time
pre-school/Kindergarten
teacher, that she would also have to assume
the
half-time music/art teacher responsibilities for the 1992-1993
school
year or resign. Knebel did not want the position
because
she
did not have any background teaching in the music/art areas.
Additionally, because of her
family responsibilities, she did not
desire
to work full-time. However, since she did need to make a
living,
she accepted the full time combination position under, what
she
spoke of as, a great deal of pressure.
The parties had three meetings
to negotiate the 1992-1993 reopener
to
the collective bargaining agreement:
1992; and
the
1991-1993 "Master Agreement" without and changes. The board
consistently
rejected all three of the association's proposals.
When no agreement was reached,
the association filed for mediation
with
PERC. The parties met with the assistance of a Public
Employment
Relations Commission mediator
Although the association
withdrew two of its proposals, the board
rejected
the association settlement offer.
Shortly thereafter, the
association mailed a letter to all Starbuck
residents
offering its view of the bargaining and requesting that
the
residents ". . . let your school board know how you feel . . ." In
response,
the board received two letters of support from community
members.
The letters stated, in part:
We would like to take this
opportunity to let
the
their
decision and applaud their fortitude in
doing
the job they feel is best for the school
and
the community.
and
We would like all of you on the Starbuck
School Board to know that we support and
stand
behind whatever
decisions you have to make.
The November potluck
dinner/board meeting was an emotional session
with a
better than average turnout. Some community members sided
with
the board's position in bargaining, some supported the
association's.
Some contended that Knebel was experiencing a great
deal
of stress in her new full-time, combination teaching position.
The most vocal pro-board
person was the father of a school board
member.
One of the supporters of the association's position was a
former
board member who had been voted out of office; he was also
the
former husband of a current teacher.
During an executive session at
the November board meeting, the
board
decided to immediately offer Knebel the half-time
pre-
school/Kindergarten
position, and to post the half-time music/art
position
separately. Knebel accepted the board's offer and
relinquished
the music/art duties in December, 1992. Three people
inquired
about the half-time music/art position; one person
applied.
The applicant was hired and began teaching mid-March,
1993.
On February 23, 1993, the
parties again met with the help of the
mediator.
No agreement was reached.
Following the normal course of
business in late February, 1993, the
board
sent the association a packet of materials relating to agenda
items
for the February school board meeting. In this packet was a
supplemental
employment contract for "Head Teacher in Charge of
Discipline".
The Head Teacher" was one of the items about which
the
association had made bargaining proposals; the association
believed
that the issue was at impasse.
During the 1992-1993 school
year, 4.0 FTE
certificated teachers are
employed.
The district also employs 2.7 FTE classified employees
holding
the positions of secretary/bookkeeper, custodian, Chapter
1 aide,
and cook. The association also represents these school
classified
employees in a bargaining unit and under a collective
bargaining
agreement, separate from the certificated unit and
agreement.
The district superintendent, Sue Flink, is employed
half-time
by the district. 3
_______________________________
3 Flink is also employed half-time
by the Educational
Service District #123 headquartered in Pasco,
Washington.
ISSUES
During the course of the
fact-finding hearing, the parties
presented
three issues on which they were at impasse.
ISSUE ONE: SALARY 1992-1993
Union position --4
The association proposes
paying the teachers in accordance with the
1992-1993 state allocation
model. It submits that this would cost
the
district $3,876 in total.
______________
4 Arguments
stated in the union's brief but not addressed
in
this decision were withdrawn at the hearing. Union
statements
of employer contentions which are not ad-
dressed
in this discussion were disputed and/or dis-
claimed
by the employer at the hearing.
The association contends that
the district has the ability to pay
for
the proposal. It cites that the district's financial situation
has
improved since the parties first agreed to pay all the state
allocated
funds to the staff.5 The association claims that the
1991-1992 ending balance was
the largest in recent history and
comprised
29% of the total budgeted operating fund for 1992-1993.
_______________
5 The
association produced the following figures as ending
balances for the
district budget since 1989:
1988-89
$80,673
1989-90
$75,249
1990-91
$89,787
1991-92
$112,246.
The board agrees that the
figures reflect the ending
balances,
but points out that each figure includes
approximately
$10,000 of restricted funds to be used only
for
transportation or the district s "government houses".
Employer position --
The employer proposed to
maintain the 1991-1992 salary schedule for
the
1992-1993 school year. The district asserts that it receives
state
funds for 3.579 FTE teachers. By adding the half-time
music/art teacher,
the district went .421 FTE teacher over its
basic
entitlement. The district costs out the music/art teacher
position
approximately $13,000, including benefits. The district
contends
that the new music/art teacher is a benefit to the
association
since the extra teaching staff has provided classroom
staff
with preparation time during the school day. Additionally,
the
new teacher relieved the rest of the staff of music/art
curriculum
preparation.
The board cites that it had
budgeted $17,000 for the computer lab,
but
actually spent $25,000.
The board does not claim that
it lacks money in reserves to fund
the
association's proposal, or that the association's demands are
unreasonable.
However the board believes its position is fair.
The board contends it has a
philosophical difference with the
teachers
about their proposals.
The board maintains that it is
located in an economically depressed
area
of the state and it fears that its student enrollment might
decline.
The board asserts that it has to be prudent, responsible
and
accountable to its constituents in all that it does. The board
claims
it has the support of its constituents, and that it needs to
honor
that support in order to keep the best interest of the school
in
mind. The board advances that it has to have the trust of the
community
to pass levies; if it violates that trust, then the levy
campaigns
would not be successful. The board does not want to use
any
of its reserve funds since the majority of all the district's
funding
comes from the state Legislature and there is uncertainty
about
what the Legislature will do in the future.
Union Rebuttal --
The association submits that
since 1986, the district has continu-
ally
agreed in bargaining to pay the state allocation figure for
the
certificated employees. The association does not credit that
the
addition of a music/art teacher and the concomitant increase in
planning
time for existing staff should relieve the district of its
obligation
to pass all the state funded salary money on to the
teachers.
It claims that it was the board's own unilateral
decision
to add extra staff that created additional planning time
and
that the employer's action resulted in "shabby treatment" of a
colleague
who was pressured into providing the alleged benefit.
The association advances that
the computers were a one-time
expenditure,
and should not be a justification for denying the
teachers
the money the state sends to the district for salaries.
Further, it argues that the board's unilateral decision to purchase
computers
cannot obligate the employees to pay for them. The
association
stresses that the purchase of capital equipment is the
obligation
of the taxpayers and not the employees. It contends
that,
in effect, the board has unilaterally levied a payroll tax
against
its employees because it is unwilling to take a bond to the
community
for a vote. If capital improvements are needed the
association
urges that the community should decide if it wants to
pass a
bond.
The association argues that
Starbuck is the only area district that
does
not fully allocate the state's salary resources to its
certificated
staff. It asserts that not one of the other 25
districts
in its UniServ counsel withhold state salary funds
from
the
teaching staff.6 Thus, the association contends that the
consideration
of comparability would endorse the board's accepting
the
proposal.
______________
6 The
association supplied the following information to
substantiate
that neighboring districts expend more than
what
is allocated by the state for certificated staff:
DISTRICT EXPENDITURE OVER STATE
ALLOCATION
Kahlotus $4,046
Pomeroy $1,121
Ritzville $12,351
Waitsburg $6,773
Washtucna $5,353
The association contends that
the enrollment has been steady since
at
least 1988. It maintains that the board's fears of an enroll-
ment drop are not substantiated by the facts.7
If, in fact, the
enrollment
does drop, the association asserts that it would be
appropriate
for the district to reduce its staff or raise levies.
_____________
The parties stipulated to the
following enrollment
figures
:
YEAR FTE
STUDENTS
1988-89 33.31
1989-90 31.99
1990-91 35.06
1991-92 34.92.
The association concludes that
it is unfair to expect the employees
of
the school to provide for the education of the community's
students
while the board and the community escape their obligation
to
provide for the school by unilaterally passing the burden to its
employees.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SALARY
There is no question that the
association's proposal is
reasonable.
The board admitted it was. Neighboring,
similarly
situated employers pass all their state funded
salary
money on to their teachers, and even add more. The
purpose
of adopting a statewide allocation model was to
allow
smaller districts to compete fairly with bigger
districts,
thereby ensuring that teachers with education
and
experience would serve in the smaller populations.
The allocation of state money
is determined by the
education
level and experience of each individual
teacher.
If a teacher takes it upon him or herself to
seek
advanced education, the state allots more salary
money
for that achievement. The Legislature did not
intend
to have its allocations of monies to be used by a
local
school district to increase its reserve accounts
while
exploiting its workforce.
The district has the ability
to pay for the association's
proposal.
It stipulated to the accuracy of the reserve
fund
figures supplied by the association. Even if the
$10,000 in restricted funds is
subtracted from the
reserve
balance, the remainder could still fund the
proposal
and leave the district with a healthy reserve
balance.
The board should be commended
on its efforts to maintain
communication
with the community. The board is acting
reasonably
in being sensitive to input it receives from
community
members. A careful reading of the letters
written
to the board, however, shows that one author
supports
decisions made in the best interest of the
school
and the other would support Whatever decision the
board
determined it had to make. Neither expressly
opposes
the association's proposal, and neither urges the
board
to say "no" at any cost. To withhold the money
allocated
by the state is unreasonable. Since individual
efforts
by each teacher in his or her own educational
achievement
and experience levels are included in the
calculation
to determine the amount of the state alloca-
tion, the teachers can easily view the
allocation as
money
they, themselves, generate. Not paying salaries
based
on the state allocation model could readily cause
turmoil,
which is not in the best interest of the school.
If the board and the community
believe that it is
beneficial
to be in the business of offering education
locally,
and not consolidating with a neighboring
district,
then it would be prudent to compensate its
teachers
in accordance with the area standards.
Your fact-finder recommends:
The parties
agree
to compensate the certificated teaching
staff
according to the 1992-1993 state alloca-
tion model. The salary payments are to be
retroactive
to
active
payment is to be paid to each bargain-
ing unit member in the pay period following
prompt
ratification of the collective bargain-
ing agreement by both parties.
ISSUE TWO: HEAD TEACHER ARTICLE
Union Position
--
The union advanced that, since
the superintendent was only on the
premises
half time, one faculty member should be designated the
"Head
Teacher" to act in the superintendent s absence.
It proposed
the
following:
The superintendent shall
designate a teacher
to be the person
responsible in case of emer-
gency situations such as the following: urgent
parent
concerns, phone emergencies, immediate
student
discipline problems, arranging for employee
substitutes,
and responding to unscheduled visitors etc.
The head teacher shall be
compensated at ,075
X Base salary. [$1,606]
In an effort to reach an
agreement with the district, the associ-
ation withdrew this proposed article at one time
during the
negotiations.
Employer position
--
The employer maintains that it
does not need an employee acting as
superintendent
in the absence of the regular superintendent.
Rather, the employer asserts
it requires a "Head Teacher in Charge
of
Discipline". The employer proposes
that the responsibilities of
a
"Head Teacher" would be:
* Carry out discipline procedures as required in the
absence
of the building administrator;
and
* Provide assistance to teachers who are not able to
manage
a discipline problem that arises
in the administrators
absence.
Under the employer's proposal,
classroom teachers would handle
minor
and routine discipline problems. Duties other than
discipline
would be carried out by the district's administrative
assistant.
The compensation would be $450.00 per year.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION
Any employer has the right to
determine what classifica-
tion of employee it will hire and what job
duties it will
assign
to the classification. A union can then bargain
the
compensation rate that it believes is appropriate for
the
responsibilities assigned. 8
___________________
8 The
purpose of fact-finding is to give recommendation
for settlement to
the parties on items which are at
impasse. If the association questions that the process
by which the
employer offered the head teacher supplemen-
tal
contract lacked good faith bargaining, that issue
should be resolved
in the unfair labor practice forum.
The degree of difficulty, and
the amount, of the duties
the
board is requiring of a "Head Teacher" is far less
than
what the association was proposing to be worth .075%
of
the base salary. In the absence of any argument as to
why
the compensation proposed by the employer for a "Head
Teacher" is inadequate,
$450.00 appears reasonable.
Your fact-finder recommends
that: Supplemental
employment
contract for "Head Teacher in
Charge Of
Discipline" for the compensation of
$450.00 be
maintained.
ISSUE
THREE: CUSTODIAN WORK HOURS
The association made a
proposal regarding the work hours of the
custodian
for the district. Under the Educational Employment
Relations Act, Chapter 41.59
RCW, fact-finding is only provided for
certificated
employees of a school district. The custodian is
a
classified employee of the district. He is in a bargaining unit
of
classified employees whose labor relations are regulated by the
Public Employees' Collective
Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW.
That statute does not provide
for fact-finding. Therefore, your
fact-finder
is without authority to make a recommendation to the
parties
regarding the issue of the custodian's work hours.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES
The above report and
recommendations address all the items that
were
presented at the fact-finding hearing. The parties are
reminded
of the requirements of the statute and administrative code
at
this point. Specifically:
RCW 41.59.120 RESOLVING
IMPASSES IN
COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING--MEDIATION--FACT - FIND-
ING WITH RECOMMENDATIONS--OTHER.
...
(3): Such [fact-finder's] recommenda-
tions, together with the findings of fact,
shall
be submitted in writing to the parties
and
the commission privately before they
are
made public. Either the commission, the fact-
finder,
the employer, or the exclusive bar-
gaining
representative may make such findings
and
recommendations public if the dispute is
RCW 41.59.020(4): and RCW
41.59.120...
not settled within five days
after their receipt
from the fact-finder.
***
WAC 391-55-350 EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES --
RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTIES AFTER
FACT-FINDING.
Not
more than seven days after the findings
and
recommendations have been issued, the
parties
shall notify the commission and each
other
whether they accept the recommendations
of
the fact-finder. If the recommendations of
the
fact-finder are rejected by one or both
parties
and their further efforts do not
result
in an agreement, either party may
request
mediation pursuant to chapter 41.58
RCW and, upon the concurrence
of the other
party,
the executive director shall assign a
mediator.
ISSUED at
KATRINA
I. BOEDECKER, Fact-Finder